Inmate 115235, C.A. Kruger v. Robert Erickson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that when a petition for writ of habeas corpus “fails to attack the validity of [petitioner’s] sentence or the length of his state custody, the district court lacks the power or subject matter jurisdiction to issue a writ”
• labelling of the lawsuit as a petition for writ of habeas corpus is not controlling
• explaining that “the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion, as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1738, apply to the issues in a § 1983 case which have been fully litigated in the state court” (citing Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1984))
• “If the prisoner is not challenging the validity of his conviction or the length of his detention, . . . then a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy.”
• “If the prisoner is not challenging the validity of [their] conviction or the length of [their] detention, such as loss of good time, then a writ of habeas corpus it not the proper remedy.”
• “ If the prisoner is not challenging the validity of his conviction or the length of his detention, such as loss of good time, then a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).