WALKER v. MCNEIL

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING 17 MOTION for Reconsideration (TITLED: Additional Objection to Report and Recommendations) filed by DOUGLAS WALKER. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 4/11/2011. (jws)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
DOUGLAS WALKER,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00097-MP -GRJ

WALTER A MCNEIL,
Respondent.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Doc. 17, Additional Information for Objection to
Report and Recommendation by Douglas Walker. On February 15, 2011, the Court adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed Walker’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus without prejudice for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Petitioner now submits newly discovered evidence, including retaliatory claims, in support of his
objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court construes this renewed objection as a
motion for reconsideration.
Habeas is inappropriate for the relief being sought and that relief, if any, would be
cognizable only under a civil action for deprivation of rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Where a litigant is not challenging the fact or duration of confinement, but rather the conditions
of that confinement, then civil rights is the proper avenue of relief. See Porter v. Nussle, 534
U.S. 516, 526, 122 S. Ct. 983, 990 (2002). As the Magistrate Judge noted in his Report and
Recommendation, Petitioner’s claims might be cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; however,
Petitioner would not be permitted to pursue such claims in forma pauperis because he is subject

Page 2 of 2

to the three-strikes bar of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

The motion for reconsideration, Doc. 17, is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this

11th day of April, 2011

s/Maurice M. Paul
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-00097-MP -GRJ