United States Eleventh Circuit

A prisoner's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action seeking access to evidence believed to be in the state's possession, for the purpose of DNA testing, was not the "functional equivalent" of a petition for habeas corpus, as it did not attack the validity of his conviction or sentence.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/23/2002
• Published 09/23/2002

Judges

• BARKETT, Circuit Judge:, Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, and BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eleventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Theodore A. HowardWiley Rein & Fielding, LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• James Roy Houts, Montgomery, AL, for Respondents-Appellees.