Eddington v. Grondolsky

Filing 6

Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER(Hohler, Daniel)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
TIMOTHY EDDINGTON
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-11711-DJC

WARDEN J. GRONDOLSKY,
Respondent.
CASPER, J.

November 4, 2016
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I.

Background
On August 19, 2016, pro se prisoner petitioner Timothy Eddington, filed a self-prepared

habeas corpus petition against Federal Medical Center Devens Warden J. Grondolsky concerning
his conditions of confinement at FMC Devens. See ECF No. 1, Petition, p. 1 (“I’m only fighting
the prison conditions here at FMC Devens.”). Petitioner claims that he is being denied meaningful
access to the courts and law library because of medically–based restrictions of FMC-Devens. Id.
Specifically, petitioner claims that he has severe bowel issues and is forced to choose between
recreation, medication/treatment, and law library access. Id. at pp. 6-7. Petitioner also claims that
because of his incontinence, it is not practicable for him to be at the law library. Id. at 7. Finally,
petitioner complains, generally, that because of his medical condition, he is being denied
unspecified opportunities for medical treatment, food and law library that other inmates have
access to at FMC Devens. Id. Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis along with
the petition.
II.

Analysis
“[A]s a general matter, habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for

challenging the ‘legality or duration’ of confinement. By contrast, a non-habeas civil action is the
1

proper method of challenging conditions of confinement.” Diaz v. Grondolsky, No. CA 13-11341NMG, 2013 WL 3892894, at *4 (D. Mass. July 24, 2013)(citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
475, 484–499 (1973); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 104 (1980)). “[I]f the prisoner is seeking
what can fairly be described as a quantum change in the level of custody . . . then habeas corpus is
his remedy, but if he is seeking a different program or location or environment, then he is
challenging the conditions rather than the fact of his confinement and his remedy is under civil
rights law.” Garcia v. Grondolsky, No. CIV.A. 12-12116-JLT, 2013 WL 1336836, at *2 (D. Mass.
Mar. 8, 2013)(citations and quotations omitted), report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV.A.
12-12116-JLT, 2013 WL 1337117 (D. Mass. Apr. 1, 2013).

Here, petitioner is seeking

accommodations relating to his medical conditions and access to prison facilities such as the law
library, not a quantum change to his level of custody, foreclosing habeas corpus relief. Notably,
petitioner is a “three strikes” litigant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), which may explain why
petitioner brought this matter as a habeas corpus petition rather than a civil rights action.1 In any
event, habeas corpus is not the proper procedural vehicle, and therefore, the petition should be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243.

1

A prisoner may not bring an in forma pauperis civil action if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions,
brought an action that was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, unless he or she is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Eddington is a three strikes litigant. See
Eddington v. Boyles, No. 2:11CV25, 2011 WL 3444197, at *1 (N.D.W. Va. July 11, 2011), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 2:11-CV-25, 2011 WL 3444232 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 8, 2011)(citing Eddington v.
Anderson, et al., Civil Action No. 6:10–cv–03425–GAF (W.D. Mo.); Eddington v. U.S. Marshall Service, et al., Civil
Action No. 8:10–cv–01108–RBH (D. South Carolina); Eddington v. Bharti, Civil Action No. 5:10–cv–00050–FPS
(N.D. W.Va.) as three strikes.). In addition, petitioner’s IFP status was revoked in Eddington v. Ulrich, Civil Acton
No. 2:13-cv-353-WTL-MJD, ECF Nos. 27 and 30 (S.D. Ind.); Eddington v. Samuels, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-0463JMS-MJD, ECF No. 10(S.D. Ind.). 

2

III.

Conclusion and Order
For the reasons sated above, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The motion to proceed in

forma pauperis is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Denise J. Casper
_
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3