Land v. Mosley

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM ORDER: 1. Land's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Record No. 1 is DENIED without prejudice to Lands right to assert his claim in a civil rights complaint. 2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, and STRICKEN from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 4/6/18.(MRS)cc: COR, Pro Se Filer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
(at London)
CHRISTOPHER DEAN LAND,
Petitioner,
v.
JAMIE MOSLEY, Jailer,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:18-105-DCR

MEMORANDUM ORDER

*** *** *** ***
Christopher Dean Land is an inmate being held at the Laurel County Correctional
Center in London, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Land filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He alleges that “the respondent is
being deliberately indifferent to [his] cataracts by denying [him] adequate medical
treatment, which violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishment.” [Record No. 1 at 5]. Land describes his claim as “unconstitutional restraints
during lawful custody,” and he asks the Court to “issue a preliminary injunction to remove
the unconstitutional restraints [and] also order conditional release if unconstitutional
restraints are not removed.” [Record No. 1 at 8].
This Court will deny Land’s habeas petition. Land’s claim that he is receiving
legally inadequate medical care falls outside the core of habeas corpus because it does not
truly relate to the validity or duration of his confinement. See Caudill v. Hickey, No. 5:12cv-007-KKC, 2012 WL 2524234, *2 (E.D. Ky. 2012) (citing Hodges v. Bell, 170 F. App’x
-1-

389, 392-93 (6th Cir. 2006)). Instead, his claim relates to the conditions of his confinement,
and he may only pursue that claim by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.1 See Caudill, 2012 WL 2524234, at *2; Hodges, 170 F. App’x at 392-93.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1.

Land’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

[Record No. 1] is DENIED without prejudice to Land’s right to assert his claim in a civil
rights complaint.
2.

This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, and STRICKEN from the

Court’s docket.
This 6th day of April, 2018.

1

Land’s § 2241 petition does not become cognizable simply because he asks the Court to
“order [his] conditional release” if the so-called “unconstitutional restraints are not
removed.” [Record No. 1 at 8]. After all, even if Land can establish that his medical
treatment amounts to a constitutional violation, the available remedies are damages or
injunctive relief. See Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 387 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[The] habeas
corpus petition would be proper if release were among the possible remedies for an Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claim. Unfortunately for [the petitioner], it is not.”);
Srivastava v. United States, 2011 WL 3291823, *2 (E.D.N.C. 2011) (making this same
point).
-2-