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)

Download PDF
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)

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?