In 1973, this Court announced an exception to the broad language of § 1983
when it held that a prisoner must bring a suit for equitable relief that challenges
"the fact or duration of confinement" as a habeas corpus petition. See Preiser u.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). And, in Wilkinson v. Dotson, 125 S. Ct. 1242
(2005) this Court limited the exception when it held that a prisoner may pursue a
§ 1983 claim challenging the constitutionality of parole eligibility procedures.
Here, Mr. Medina first challenged the parole eligibility procedures of the
Colorado Department of Corrections Time Computation Office in a § 1983 only to
be told he must instead file a habeas corpus. Then, when he filed § 2241 habeas
corpus he was told the opposite, that he must file a § 1983. So who 's right? They
both cannot be right. This is a classic Catch-22 situation.
The question here is what remedy is the proper one for challenging over
detention and a sentence miscalculation? Habeas Corpus or 42 U.S.C. § 1983? Or
both? Courts have granted relief under both habeas and 1983. Medina has sought
both remedies only to be told he has to file the other. This is a typical Catch-22
situation were the lower courts are simply telling a litigant to pursue an alternate
remedy so they can avoid dealing with it. Shame on them for taking the easy way
out. This Court should answer this question not just for Mr. Medina, but for the
thousands of other litigants who are wrongfully imprisoned past their release date
and have no clear path to freedom. It will save the time and resources of many
who are just trying to return to their loved ones. It raises a controversial issue of
extreme important public interest and should be settled once and for all.

Whether a prisoner challenging parole eligibility procedures and sentence miscalculation must pursue relief through habeas corpus or 42 U.S.C. § 1983