Lockhart v. Allen et al

Filing 3

ORDER: (1) granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) Dismissing Case Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 5/26/2017. (Mailed Petitioner a Pro Se Prisoner Packet) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(fth)

i

tr.M»

i

1

LED

2

ItHMfSO PH

3
4

f—A-

5

m-

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BOBBY SHAWN LOCKHART,

Case No.: 17cvl011 BEN(KSC)

Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; and (2) DISMISSING
CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

ALLEN, Grievance Coodinator, et al.

15
16
17
18
19
20

Respondents.
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 2 8 U. S. C. § 2241, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS

21

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute

22

the above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or

23

costs and without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court will file the

24

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

25

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

26

Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of

27

Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for the claims

28

Petitioner presents. Petitioner lists various problems he claims he is facing in custody.
l
17cvl011 BEN(KSC)

11*”-

1

Specifically, Petitioner claims: his access to courts has been interfered with, his Freedom

2

of Information Act rights are being violated, and he has been denied medical care. (Pet.

3

at 1-7, ECF No. 1.) Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on habeas review. Challenges

4

to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus,

5

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2241; challenges to conditions of confinement are

6

brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

7

U.S. 475, 500 (1973), or pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal

8

Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the “federal analogue” to § 1983. Hartman v.

9

Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254, 255 n.2 (2006). A Bivens action is the proper remedy for a

10

federal prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison

11

life, but not to the fact or length of his custody. See Prieser, 411 U.S. at 499; Bivens, 403

12

U.S. 388. It appears that Petitioner challenges the conditions of his prison life, but not

13

the fact or length of his custody. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas

14

claim pursuant to § 2241.

15

CONCLUSION

16

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in

17

forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court will file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

18

without prepayment of the filing fee. Further, the Court DISMISSES this case without

19

prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a Pro Se Prisoner Packet

20

together with a copy ofimis Or/ter.

21
22
23

IT IS SO Q
DATED:
nited States District Court

24

25
26
27
28
2

17cvl 011 BEN(KSC)