[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 14, 2007
No. 07-12394 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00101-CV-4-RH-WCS
CHARLIE ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES MCDONOUGH,
ORLESTER DICKENS,
MONICA DAVID,
TENA M. PATE,
FREDERICK B. DUNPHY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(December 14, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charlie Robinson, a Florida prisoner, appeals pro se the sua sponte dismissal
of his complaint, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that various employees of the Florida
Department of Corrections, the Florida Parole Commission, and the Tomoka
Correctional Institution, violated Robinson’s rights under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments when they forfeited all or part of Robinson’s “gain time”
following the revocation of his control release. We affirm.
We review de novo the sua sponte dismissal by a district court for failure to
state a claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and view the allegations in the
complaint as true. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159–60 (11th Cir. 2003).
A habeas petition is the “exclusive remedy for a prisoner who challenges the
fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release.”
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 1841 (1973). “[A] state
prisoner’s [section] 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) – no matter the
relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no mater the target of the prisoner’s suit
(state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) – if success in
that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its
duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 1248 (2005)
(emphasis in original). Robinson challenges the computation of his gain time by
2
the Florida Department of Corrections. The allocation of gain time has a direct
effect on the duration of a prisoner’s confinement. The district court correctly
concluded that Robinson’s exclusive remedy is a habeas petition.
The dismissal of Robinson’s complaint is
AFFIRMED.
3