Goolsby v. English
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff is granted until August 25, 2017, to advise the Court whether he intends to proceed in this matter under Bivens. If so, he must file his complaint on court-approved forms. If Plaintiff fails to file a response, this matter will be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 07/27/17. Mailed to pro se party James Earl Goolsby by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JAMES EARL GOOLSBY,
CASE NO. 17-3120-SAC-DJW
NICOLE ENGLISH, Warden,
Plaintiff filed this matter as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Plaintiff, a prisoner in federal custody at USP-Leavenworth (“USPL”), proceeds pro se. Plaintiff
has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). Plaintiff alleges that he is
being denied medical treatment for his cystic kidneys and liver.
A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides the remedy to challenge the execution of a
sentence. Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011). Thus, a petitioner may
challenge the fact or duration of his confinement and may seek release or a shorter period of
confinement. See Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1037 n.2 (10th Cir. 2012). However,
claims challenging a prisoner’s conditions of confinement do not arise under Section 2241. See
McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811–12 (10th Cir. 1997) (contrasting
suits under Section 2241 and conditions of confinement claims).
In the present case, Plaintiff does not complain of the loss of good conduct time or of any
negative impact on the duration of his sentence. Accordingly, he may not challenge the denial of
medical treatment in a habeas corpus action; rather, he must proceed, if at all, in a civil rights
action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Requena v. Roberts, 552 F. App’x. 853 (10th Cir. April 7, 2014).
The filing fee for a Bivens action is $350.00. Based on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) and the account information submitted with that motion, he
would be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis if he proceeds with a Bivens action, and
would owe an initial partial filing fee of $54.00. Although Plaintiff would be granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, he would remain obligated to pay the full $350.00 filing fee, but
would be allowed to do so through payments automatically deducted from his institutional
account. The Court offers no opinion on the merits of such an action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff is granted until
August 25, 2017, to advise the Court whether he intends to proceed in this matter under Bivens.
If so, he must file his complaint on court-approved forms. See D. Kan. Rule 9.1(a). If Plaintiff
fails to file a response, this matter will be dismissed.
The clerk is directed to send Plaintiff forms for filing a Bivens action under 28 U.S.C.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated in Kansas City, Kansas, on this 27th day of July, 2017.
s/ David J. Waxse
DAVID J. WAXSE
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?