Richard Hansen v. Timothy Schmidt , 251 F. App'x 376 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-1095
    ___________
    Richard Otto Hansen,                   *
    *
    Appellant,                *
    *
    v.                                * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Timothy Schmidt, In His Official       * District of Nebraska.
    Capacity As The District Attorney Of *
    Nuckolls County, Nebraska; Terri       * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Harder, In Her Official Capacity As    *
    The District Judge Of Nuckolls         *
    County, Nebraska,                      *
    *
    Appellees.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 2, 2007
    Filed: October 23, 2007
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Federal inmate Richard Otto Hansen appeals the district court’s1 preservice
    dismissal, without prejudice, of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action under 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1915
    (e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Having carefully reviewed the record and Hansen’s
    1
    The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
    of Nebraska.
    submissions on appeal, see Moore v. Sims, 
    200 F.3d 1170
    , 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per
    curiam) (standard of review under § 1915(e)(2)(B)); Cooper v. Schriro, 
    189 F.3d 781
    ,
    783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (standard of review under § 1915A(b)), we affirm.
    We agree with the district court that both defendants are immune from a civil
    suit for damages. See Mireles v. Waco, 
    502 U.S. 9
    , 11-12 (1991) (per curiam)
    (judicial immunity); Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 
    75 F.3d 1261
    , 1266 (8th Cir. 1996)
    (prosecutorial immunity). We also agree with the district court that Hansen’s
    complaint fails because Hansen seeks to vacate a state criminal conviction, and such
    actions must be brought through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus rather than a
    section 1983 complaint. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 
    411 U.S. 475
    , 500 (1973) (federal
    writ of habeas corpus is sole remedy for challenges to fact or duration of
    confinement).
    The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -2-