D.D., et al v. Avery Niles

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10620
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-00063-RWS
D.D., by and through his parents, Devin Dabney and Via Durham,
DEVIN DABNEY, individually,
VIA DURHAM, individually,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
AVERY NILES,
Commissioner, Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice,
in his Official Capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(September 3, 2015)
Case: 15-10620 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
D.D. and his parents brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging
his detention by the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (“DJJ”). The district
court dismissed the case for failure to exhaust state remedies. On appeal, D.D.
concedes that his due process rights must be challenged through a writ of habeas
corpus; thus, D.D. does not challenge on appeal the dismissal of his claim for lack
of exhaustion. However, D.D.’s parents argue on appeal that D.D.’s detention by
the DJJ violates their constitutional parental rights.
Regardless of how the Appellants frame the claims, both claims – D.D.’s
own claim (Count Two) and his parents’ claim based on their parental rights
(Count One) – are, in their essential nature, challenges to D.D.’s detention.
Therefore, the appropriate method to challenge D.D.’s detention is to seek a writ of
habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 1836
(1973) (“Congress has determined that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for
state prisoners attacking the validity of the fact or length of their confinement, and
that specific determination must override the general terms of § 1983.”). Because
the available remedies in Georgia courts have not been exhausted, we agree with
Case: 15-10620 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the district court’s holding that the claims must be dismissed for failure to
exhaust.1
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
1 In light of our holding that the parents’ claim sounds in habeas and must be dismissed for
lack of exhaustion, we need not, and do not, address the parents’ argument that the district court
erred in suggesting that the parents’ fundamental parental rights were not implicated.
Case: 15-10620 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --