Kayin El v. Monroe County Jail et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice to Petitioner pursuing his claims regarding conditions of confinement in a civil rights action. The Court expresses no opinion on the meritsof Petitioner's claims if he chooses to bring them in a civil rights case. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 2/27/2018. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JELANI AGYEI KAMAU KAYIN EL,
a/k/a GILARDI C. BURNS,
No. 10954-025,
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No. 17-cv-1399-DRH

MONROE COUNTY JAIL,
and OFFICERS (Monroe County Jail),
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Petitioner is a federal prisoner, currently incarcerated in the Monroe
County Jail (“the Jail”). He brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the constitutionality of his confinement.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Petition
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States
District Courts. Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration by the
district court judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge
must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b)
of those Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas
corpus cases, such as this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

After carefully

reviewing the Petition and related documents, the Court concludes that Petitioner
1

is not entitled to habeas relief, and the petition must be dismissed.

Background
On the same date when he filed this action (December 29, 2017), Petitioner
also filed a civil rights case seeking to recover damages pursuant to either Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Kayin El v. USA, et al., Case No. 17-cv-1398-SMY. On February 1, 2018, that
case was dismissed as legally frivolous. (Doc. 6 in Case No. 17-cv-1398).1
In the instant case, Petitioner states that he is being held in the Jail while
awaiting trial on criminal charges, and is also serving a sentence for having
violated his federal probation. (Doc. 1, p. 1). This information is consistent with
the records of this Court in Petitioner’s pending criminal case, United States v.
Burns, Case No. 17-cr-30110-MJR, where he is charged with failure to surrender
to begin serving the sentence imposed as a result of the probation violation. (Doc.
1 in Case No. 17-cr-30110-MJR). In an earlier criminal case, United States v.
Burns, Case No. 13-cr-30233-MJR, Plaintiff’s supervised release was revoked on
January 26, 2017, and he was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment.
127, 129, 130, 140 in Case No. 13-cr-30233-MJR).

(Docs.

According to the

Government’s response to Petitioner’s pending motion for bond in Case No. 17-cr30110-MJR, he is still serving that 9-month sentence. (Doc. 52 in Case No. 17-cr30110-MJR).

A hearing has been scheduled for March 8, 2018, in the 2017

1

The February 1, 2018, dismissal Order in Case No. 17-cv-1398-SMY includes a detailed synopsis of
Petitioner’s criminal cases.

2

criminal case to consider the motion for bond as well as Petitioner’s motion to
continue the trial. (See Docs. 42, 57, in Case No. 17-cr-30110-MJR).
The Petition
Petitioner’s stated grounds for challenging his current confinement include
alleged due process violations, lack of medical care, brain damage he claims to
have suffered during his incarceration, deprivation of telephone, mail, and
commissary privileges, being placed on lockdown, lack of access to legal
materials, and inability to call his attorney. (Doc. 1, p. 2). He seeks immediate
release from the Jail, as well as “immediate dismissal” of his criminal case “due
to due process of law issues.” (Doc. 1, p. 8).
He further claims that the case should be dismissed in connection with his
“properly discharging this debt and settling this account . . . that will be turned
into an asset, stock, or bond and sold on the Stock Exchange which will create
Capitol [sic] for the United States Government and this particular court as well.”
Id. He objects to the Court placing his “Estate or Family Name” in all capital
letters. He states that he has submitted Internal Revenue Service Form 966 to
“dissolve any corporate status that was created by the U.S. Government at or
around the time of my physical entry into this wor[l]d/dimension.” Id.
On January 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a copy of a grievance form (Doc. 4)
which he may have submitted to Jail officials. He complains that the Jail has no
true grievance process, and states that Jail officials are not signing financial
documents that he needs to send to this Court. They refuse to provide him with

3

legal material, copies, or phone access. He also alleges that he has not been given
his prescribed vitamin supplements, and has not seen a doctor. (Doc. 4, p. 2).
He claims that he has been verbally abused and threatened with lockdown by Jail
officers. Id.
Discussion
Petitioner has brought this action under the umbrella of habeas corpus law.
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Typically, the writ of habeas corpus is used to completely free
an inmate from unlawful custody. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-85
(1973).

Release from custody is indeed what Petitioner seeks in this case.

However, this Court must look beyond that request for relief, to independently
evaluate the substance of Petitioner’s claim and determine whether the correct
statute – in this case 28 U.S.C. § 2241 – is being invoked. Preiser, 411 U.S. at
500 (dismissing § 1983 civil rights claims that should have been brought as
petition for writ of habeas corpus); Bunn v. Conley, 309 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (7th
Cir. 2002) (district court should not have recharacterized declaratory judgment
action as petition for habeas corpus); Godoski v. United States, 304 F.3d 761,
763 (7th Cir. 2002) (court must evaluate independently the substance of the claim
being brought, to see if correct statute is being invoked).

If a prisoner is

challenging the conditions of his confinement, rather than the fact of confinement,
then his remedy is under civil rights law – not habeas corpus.

Graham v.

Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1991); see also Pischke v. Litscher, 178
F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 1999).

4

Section 2241 provides, in relevant part: “The writ of habeas corpus shall
not extend to a prisoner unless –

. . . [h]e is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
The federal habeas corpus statute cannot be used to challenge conditions of
confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 38687 (7th Cir. 2005); Williams v. Wisconsin, 336 F.3d 576,579 (7th Cir. 2003);
DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607,617 (7th Cir. 2000); Pischke, 178 F.3d at 500;
Graham, 922 F.2d at 381.
Despite the vague claims of a due process violation, which Petitioner does
not explain, the instant Petition does not reveal any basis to support a conclusion
that Petitioner’s custody is in violation of the Constitution or any law or treaty.
The record in his criminal cases, as well as the Petition itself, demonstrate that
Petitioner is serving a lawful sentence imposed after his probation was revoked,
and that he is simultaneously in custody pending a trial on the 2017 charge for
failing to surrender. Notably, Petitioner’s motion requesting release on bond is
scheduled to be heard in his criminal case within 2 weeks. His entitlement to
release shall be properly determined within the context of that case, where he is
represented by counsel.
Petitioner’s complaints regarding denial of medical care, mail interference,
lockdown, and other conditions of confinement are not proper grounds for habeas
relief, but instead may be brought in a civil rights case.2 That said, the Court

2

The Court will not construe the instant case as a civil rights claim. See Bunn v. Conley, 309 F.3d 1002,
1007 (7th Cir. 2002); Moore v. Pemberton, 110 F.3d 22, 24 (7th Cir. 1997).

5

expresses no opinion as to the merits of any potential civil rights claim that
Plaintiff may bring based on these allegations.
Finally, Petitioner’s nonsensical references to the discharge of a debt,
selling an asset on the stock exchange, and dissolution of a corporate entity do
not provide any basis for habeas relief or for the dismissal of his criminal charge
or conviction. They appear to be more of the “sovereign citizen” rhetoric that this
Court found to be legally frivolous when raised in the context of Petitioner’s civil
rights action in Case No. 17-cv-1398-SMY. These arguments are equally frivolous
in the context of a habeas action, and fail to provide any grounds for releasing
Petitioner from custody.
Disposition
To summarize, Petitioner has not presented any grounds for habeas relief.
Accordingly, this habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED
without prejudice to Petitioner pursuing his claims regarding conditions of
confinement in a civil rights action. The Court expresses no opinion on the merits
of Petitioner’s claims if he chooses to bring them in a civil rights case.
All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE and enter judgment accordingly.
Further, the Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Petitioner a blank civil rights
complaint form and instructions, along with a blank form motion/affidavit to
proceed without prepaying fees or costs, to assist him if he wishes to bring his
claims in a civil rights action.

6

If Petitioner wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may file a notice of appeal
with this court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues
Petitioner plans to present on appeal.

See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(C).

If

Petitioner does choose to appeal and is allowed to proceed IFP, he will be liable
for a portion of the $505.00 appellate filing fee (the amount to be determined
based on his prison/jail trust fund account records for the past six months)
irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725-26 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan
v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d
464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). A proper and timely motion filed pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal deadline. A Rule 59(e)
motion must be filed no more than twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of the
judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended. It is not necessary for
Petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability from this disposition of his
§ 2241 Petition. Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 638 (7th Cir. 2000).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.02.27
15:44:05 -06'00'
United States District Judge

7