Brooks v. Mosley et al (INMATE2)

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Calvin Bernard Brooks, be DISMISSED without prejudice to his right to file the appropriate civil rights action with regard to the matters challenged in the instant petition. Objections to R&R due by 5/31/2006. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 5/19/2006. (dmn)

Brooks v. Mosley et al (INMATE2)

Doc. 3

Case 2:06-cv-00432-MEF-DRB

Document 3

Filed 05/19/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION _________________________________ C A LV IN BERNARD BROOKS, #137 190 P l a i n t if f , v. G W E N D O L Y N MOSLEY, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . _________________________________ * * * * * 2:06-CV-432-MEF (WO)

O R D E R AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P e titio n e r is GRANTED leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This case is before the court on an application for habeas corpus relief filed by Calvin B ro o ks ["Brooks"], a state inmate incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional Facility located in Clio, Alabama. He filed the instant action on a form for use in filing a habeas petition u n d e r 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) Attached to the petition is Petitioner's Affidavit in S u p p o r t of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus wherein Brooks asserts that he files this action p u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 2.) Upon consideration of the petition, and s u p p o rtin g affidavit, the court concludes that the petition is due to be summarily dismissed. S e e Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. I. DISCUSSION Brooks is currently serving a life sentence. See

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-00432-MEF-DRB

Document 3

Filed 05/19/2006

Page 2 of 4

h ttp ://w w w . d o c .s ta te .a l. u s /in m s ea rc h .a sp . He complains that at a progress review hearing, "Warden Mosley, Brian Mitchell, [and] Tyrone B a rro w s . . . reactivated 3 burglary cases that has been served to its end of s e n te n c es . They also reactiveated [sic] a theft of property second degree that h a s also ended. Further in retalliation [sic] for the petitioner refusing to attend a crime bill Sapp, program, the respondents knowingly filed false information in the petitioner's institutional files that stated the petitioner is serving a life sen ten c e for an [sic] current escape second degree. (Doc. No. 2 at pg. 1.) Regardless of how he characterizes the conduct of Alabama Department of Correctio n s officials, i.e., adding sentences, imposing false sentences, reactivating sentences, re in s ta tin g sentences, it is clear beyond cavil that only a court of conviction may impose or e n te r a sentence on behalf of a convicted criminal defendant. Petitioner's complaint in the in sta n t action boils down to his belief that there is false information in his institutional file b e c au s e prison officials have incorrectly characterized or described his past and/or current c rim in a l history in order to force, or as Brooks alleges, "blackmail," him to participate in a su b stan ce abuse program. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2.) The claims raised by Brooks in this matter are not cognizable in this habeas petition w h e th e r considered filed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or § 2254. The central p u rp o s e of the writ of habeas corpus, whether filed under § 2241 or § 2254, is to provide a re m e d y to prisoners who are challenging the "fact or duration" of their physical confinement an d are seeking immediate release or an earlier release. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 4 7 5 , 484 (1973); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). Federal habeas corpus relief is n o t available to remedy alleged constitutional violations which would not lead to either (1) 2

Case 2:06-cv-00432-MEF-DRB

Document 3

Filed 05/19/2006

Page 3 of 4

a n automatic shortening of an individual's sentence or (2) the individual's immediate release. S e e Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31 (5 th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1059 (1996). In filing this action, Brooks complains not about the fact or duration of his c o n fin e m e n t, but rather, about false information deliberately placed in his institutional file b y prison officials for extortion, retaliation, and/or blackmail purposes, which has no effect o n his sentence or the validity of his current confinement. Brooks does not allege much less i n d ic a te that the conduct he attributes to ADOC officials has had an effect on the life se n ten c e he is currently serving or that the absence of the allegedly false information would le a d to the shortening of his sentence or his immediate release. The false information that B r o o k s alleges is in his institutional file, while possibly having the potential to affect his p a ro le eligibility, will not invariably affect the length of the sentence he is serving, and t h e re fo re , does not provide a basis for habeas relief. Rather, the nature of the allegations p re se n te d herein are more appropriately reviewed in a civil rights action filed under the p rovision s of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or another statute authorizing damages or injunctive relief. II. CONCLUSION A c co rd in gly , it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner C a lvin Brooks' petition for federal habeas corpus relief be DISMISSED without prejudice to his right to file the appropriate civil rights action with regard to the matters challenged in th e instant petition. It is further

3

Case 2:06-cv-00432-MEF-DRB

Document 3

Filed 05/19/2006

Page 4 of 4

O R D E R E D that on or before May 31, 2006 the parties may file objections to the R e c o m m e n d atio n . Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M a gis tra te Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised th a t this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a gis tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tta c kin g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D istrict Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

W a in wr ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, e n banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e, this 19 th day of May 2006. /s / Delores R. Boyd D E LO R E S R. BOYD U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4