Lockhart v. Allen et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BOBBY SHAWN LOCKHART,
Case No.: 17cvl011 BEN(KSC)
ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; and (2) DISMISSING
CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
ALLEN, Grievance Coodinator, et al.
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
Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute
the above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or
costs and without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court will file the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM
Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for the claims
Petitioner presents. Petitioner lists various problems he claims he is facing in custody.
Specifically, Petitioner claims: his access to courts has been interfered with, his Freedom
of Information Act rights are being violated, and he has been denied medical care. (Pet.
at 1-7, ECF No. 1.) Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on habeas review. Challenges
to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2241; challenges to conditions of confinement are
brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 500 (1973), or pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal
Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the “federal analogue” to § 1983. Hartman v.
Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254, 255 n.2 (2006). A Bivens action is the proper remedy for a
federal prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison
life, but not to the fact or length of his custody. See Prieser, 411 U.S. at 499; Bivens, 403
U.S. 388. It appears that Petitioner challenges the conditions of his prison life, but not
the fact or length of his custody. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas
claim pursuant to § 2241.
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in
forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court will file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
without prepayment of the filing fee. Further, the Court DISMISSES this case without
prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a Pro Se Prisoner Packet
together with a copy ofimis Or/ter.
IT IS SO Q
nited States District Court
17cvl 011 BEN(KSC)
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?