Mink v. White
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell. For the reasons set forth herein, on preliminary review of the habeas petition, the Court concludes it must be denied and the action dismissed by separate Order. cc: Petitioner, pro se; Respondent; KY AG (JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
RICKY W. MINK
v.
PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14CV-P72-R
RANDY WHITE
RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner Ricky W. Mink filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. The Court must conduct a preliminary review of the habeas petition pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 4
provides that “[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.” Upon review of the petition, the Court concludes that it must be
denied.
Petitioner challenges a Kentucky State Penitentiary disciplinary proceeding finding him
guilty of the institutional charges of possession of or promoting dangerous contraband and
making threatening/intimidating statements. As his penalty, he received 105 days of disciplinary
segregation. Petitioner alleges due process violations and seeks immediate release from
segregation.
“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are
the province of habeas corpus; requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may
be presented in a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 action.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)
(citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973)). “[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging
the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination
that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole
federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 500.
In the instant case, Petitioner is not challenging the validity of his conviction or the
duration of his sentence. Rather, he is challenging the circumstances of his confinement, i.e., his
placement in segregation, and as relief, he seeks only release from segregation, not an immediate
or speedier release from incarceration. “As such, [Petitioner’s] allegations are a proper subject
for a § 1983 action, but fall outside of the cognizable core of habeas corpus relief.” Hodges v.
Bell, 170 F. App’x 389, 393 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Hodges’s complaints about the conditions of his
confinement . . . do not in any way implicate the validity of his conviction or duration of his
state-court sentence.”); Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643-44 (7th Cir. 2001)
(“Disciplinary segregation affects the severity rather than duration of custody.”); Jacobs v.
Bertrand, 228 F.R.D. 627 (E.D. Wis. 2005) (finding state prisoner’s claims that his disciplinary
segregation was imposed in violation of applicable prison rules and laws were not cognizable
under § 2254 but had to be brought under § 1983, as the claims did not challenge his placement
in custody but only the condition of his confinement).
For these reasons, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, and the petition will be
dismissed without prejudice. See Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Similar
‘habeas’ petitions have been dismissed without prejudice to a petitioner’s potential § 1983
claims, allowing the prisoner to later bring any civil rights claims properly.”).
Before Petitioner may appeal this Court’s decision, a certificate of appealability (COA)
must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A COA may issue “only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
2
§ 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). “Where a district court has rejected
the constitutional claims on the merits, . . . [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or
wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. at 484. When a district court denies a habeas petition on
procedural grounds without addressing the merits of the petition, a COA should issue if the
petitioner shows “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid
claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. The Court is satisfied in the
instant case that no jurists of reason could find its ruling to be debatable or wrong. A COA must,
therefore, be denied.
The Court will enter an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
Date:
September 10, 2014
cc:
Petitioner, pro se
Respondent
Attorney General, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Office of Criminal Appeals, 1024 Capital Center Drive,
Frankfort, KY 40601
4413.005
3
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?