UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 95-40412
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
CLIFTON CHOYCE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
NORMA SHERMAN, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(C 95 CV 165)
______________________________________________________
September 5, 1995
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Clifton Choyce, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice and proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging a violation of his due process rights in connection
with a prison disciplinary proceeding. As a result of the
proceeding, Choyce lost 500 days of good time. He seeks
declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, but he does not
request a restoration of the good time. The district court
1
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
construed his claim as one that must be pursued by writ of habeas
corpus. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition because
Choyce had not exhausted his state habeas corpus remedies. We
affirm.
We construed a prisoner's § 1983 claim as a habeas corpus
petition on identical facts in Keenan v. Bennett, 613 F.2d 127, 129
(5th Cir. 1980). In that case, the prisoner alleged a due process
violation under § 1983 for the revocation of his good time status
at a single hearing. The prisoner sought declaratory, injunctive,
and monetary damages, but expressly denied that he sought
restoration of his good-time credit. We construed the prisoner's
claim to be a habeas claim even though he disavowed any intention
to seek restoration of his good-time credit. Id.; see also Serio
v. Members of La. State Bd. of Pardons, 821 F.2d 1112, 1118 (5th
Cir. 1987) (requiring a prisoner who challenges a single hearing as
constitutionally defective to exhaust his state remedies first).
Likewise, Choyce alleges a due process violation from a single
hearing at which he lost his good time. His claim, therefore, must
be pursued by writ of habeas corpus. The district court properly
dismissed this action without prejudice because Choyce failed to
exhaust his state habeas corpus remedies.
AFFIRMED.
2