Kennedy v. St of TX Pardons Par, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 29, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-10428
Summary Calendar
KARSTEN GRANT KENNEDY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF TEXAS PARDONS AND PAROLES;
GERALD GARRETT, Chairman,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CV-291-C
--------------------
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This court affirmed on alternate grounds the dismissal of a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit filed by Karsten Grant Kennedy, Texas
prisoner # 1036345. Kennedy v. Texas Pardons and Paroles, 111
Fed. Appx. 219 (5th Cir. Aug. 18, 2004)(No. 04-10428)(per
curiam). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further
consideration in light of Wilkinson v. Dotson, 125 S. Ct. 1242

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-10428
-2-
(2005). Kennedy v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 125
S. Ct. 1637 (2005).
In Wilkinson, the Supreme Court repeated its long-held
conclusion that prisoners must challenge parole proceedings in
habeas if “they seek to invalidate the duration of their
confinement--either directly through an injunction compelling
speedier release or indirectly through a judicial determination
that necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the State’s
custody.” 125 S. Ct. at 1247. In the instant case, Kennedy
requested that the courts “force compliance of release, through
injunctive relief, as well as declaratory relief.” Because
Kennedy is requesting immediate or speedier release to mandatory
supervision, his claims are properly presented in habeas. See
Wilkinson, 125 S. Ct. at 1247; see also Cook v. Texas Dep’t of
Crim. Justice Transitional Planning Dep’t, 37 F.3d 166, 169 (5th
Cir. 1994). The judgment of the district court dismissing
Kennedy’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --