2 . By separate order dated January 31, 2005, the court ruled the Motion to Stay moot and denied the Motion to File a Proposed Amended Complaint. 3 . Plaintiff argues that the Complaint is not just about costs but, rather, is multi-faceted and "includes perhaps the single most important aspect of this situation which is that of the lack of oral pronouncement.” Petitioners’ [sic] Objection and Answer to Defendants [sic] Motion to Dismiss ("Plaintiff’s Obj.”) at 2. However, this argument appears to question the legality and/or constitutionality of Plaintiff’s sentence. The appropriate vehicle for such a challenge in this court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1836, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973)(<HOLDING>). Thus, if Plaintiff is still on probation, see
holding that the district court mischaracterized a state prisoners  1983 claim as a petition for writ of habeas corpus because the prisoner did not attack his conviction challenge the fact or length of his confinement or seek immediate release from prison holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus holding that state prisoner attacking validity of fact or length of confinement on federal constitutional grounds is limited to habeas corpus remedy holding that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law holding that a state prisoner must bring his claim in habeas only if by prevailing he would necessarily prove the unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement