11. This complaint is similar in nature to a previous complaint filed with this court which the court
recommended be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. See
Sutton v. Riley, et al., Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-352-MEF.
22. Although the court does not deem it appropriate to address the merits of Sutton’s claim of
entitlement to correctional incentive time, it is clear that this claim provides no basis for relief in a § 1983
action at this time as a ruling in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily affect the duration of his confinement.
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). “[H]abeas corpus is [therefore] the exclusive remedy” for such a claim, Heck, 512
U.S. at 481, and any habeas petition challenging the failure to grant correctional incentive time should be filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RONALD SUTTON, #210657,
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-388-WKW
BOB RILEY, et al.,
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Ronald Sutton (“Sutton”), a state inmate, complains
of the conditions of confinement to which he is subjected in the Alabama prison system.1
Sutton also challenges the failure of correctional officials to award him correctional
incentive time based on the length of his sentence.2 Sutton is currently incarcerated at the
Bibb County Correctional Facility. This correctional facility is located within the
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Upon review of the factual allegations presented in the complaint, the court
Case 2:06-cv-00388-WKW-SRW Document 3 Filed 05/02/2006 Page 1 of 4
Sutton v. Riley et al (INMATE1)
33. Attached to the plaintiff