Jeffrey Harris v. Adame Hasse

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 21, 2014 *
Decided February 21, 2014
Before
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 13‐3017
JEFFREY HARRIS,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
ADAME HASSE,
Defendant‐Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 13‐cv‐486‐bbc
Barbara B. Crabb,
Judge.
O R D E R
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
* The defendant was not served with process in the district court and is not
participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we
have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition. Thus, the appeal
is submitted on the appellant’s brief and the record. See FED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 13‐3017 Page 2
In this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Jeffrey Harris alleges that his probation officer
violated his constitutional rights by forcing him, under threat of imprisonment, to
accept an extension of his probation without a hearing. Harris seeks an order staying
“the execution of arrest warrant, and mandatory appearances.” The district court
dismissed the suit at screening without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
We agree with the district court that Harris chose the wrong vehicle to challenge
the extension of his probation. Probation is a form of custody, Minnesota v. Murphy, 465
U.S. 420, 430 (1984); Drollinger v. Milligan, 552 F.2d 1220, 1224 (7th Cir. 1977), and § 1983
cannot be used to attack the fact or length of custody, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
489–90 (1973); Williams v. Wisconsin, 336 F.3d 576, 579–80 (7th Cir. 2003). Instead, Harris
may pursue his grievance only in a collateral action after exhausting his available state
remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Williams, 336 F.3d at 579–80; Drollinger, 552 F.2d at
1224–25.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --