Hallahan v. Rivera
ORDER directing the Clerk of the Court to reclassify Mr. Hallahan's habeas petition as a civil complaint challenging conditions of confinement. The Clerk is further directed to send Mr. Hallahan an IFP application, along with a copy of this Orde r. Mr. Hallahan must return a completed IFP application, including an accompanying affidavit and prison account information sheet, or pay the $400 filing fee within thirty days of the date of this order. Otherwise, the lawsuit will be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 7/30/2015. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CASE NO.: 2:15CV00099 DPM/BD
C.V. RIVERA, Warden,
Federal Correctional Complex,
Forrest City, Arkansas
Nelson Hallahan, a federal inmate proceeding without the help of a lawyer, filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and paid the $5.00 statutory
filing fee for habeas cases. (Docket entries #1 and #2) After a habeas corpus petition is
filed, the Court must examine the petition and dismiss if it plainly appears that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases.1
Antonelli v. Sanders, No. 2:05cv00314, 2006 WL 897665, *2 (E.D.Ark. 2006) (citations
The Court has reviewed Mr. Hallahan’s petition in which he complains that prison
officials are not providing him with adequate medical care for his Parkinson’s disease and
are not accommodating his disabilities. (#1) He asks the Court to order his transfer to a
facility equipped to handle his physical conditions or to require Respondent to
accommodate his disability. (#1)
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases is applicable to § 2241
petitions through Rule 1(b).
A federal prisoner challenging his conditions of confinement must bring those
claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388,
91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971). By contrast, a habeas corpus action “is an attack by a person in
custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to
secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973).
Here, a Bivens claim is the appropriate cause of action, because Mr. Hallahan’s
claims all concern his treatment, or lack of treatment, at the prison. He is not seeking
release from illegal custody. For these reasons, the Court will construe Mr. Hallahan’s
complaint as one brought under Bivens. To that end, the Clerk of the Court is directed to
reclassify Mr. Hallahan’s habeas petition as a civil complaint challenging conditions of
Every civil case filed by a prisoner – including this one – requires the plaintiff to
pay a filing fee. He may pay the fee at the beginning of the lawsuit or, if he cannot afford
to pay the entire fee in a lump sum, he may apply to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
Although Mr. Hallahan paid the $5.00 filing fee required for a habeas corpus case, he has
not paid the full filing fee required in a civil rights lawsuit; nor has he submitted a
complete IFP application.
Therefore, the Clerk of the Court is directed to send Mr. Hallahan an IFP
application, along with a copy of this Order. Mr. Hallahan must return a completed IFP
application, including an accompanying affidavit and prison account information sheet, or
pay the $400.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. Otherwise, the
lawsuit will be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 30th day of July, 2015.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?