Pedreira v. Russell et al

Filing 6

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. [Copy of order mailed to petitioner on 3/21/2018.](PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ROBERT J. PEDREIRA,
Petitioner,
v.
RICHARD RUSSELL, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.
18-10046-NMG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GORTON, J.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this
action without prejudice.
I.

Background
On January 18, 2018, pro se litigant Robert Pedreira, who is

incarcerated at FMC Devens, filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“§ 2241”).

Pedreira alleges

therein that the acting warden and certain medical service
providers at FMC Devens have been deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs, specifically his need for mental health
treatment.
The petition has not been served so that the Court may
review the pleading and determine whether the respondent should
be required to reply.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (providing that, if

“it appears from the application [for a writ of habeas corpus]
that the applicant . . . is not entitled [to the writ],” the
district court is not required to serve the petition on the
respondent).

For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the

petition and dismisses this action.

II.

Discussion
Habeas corpus review is available under § 2241 if a person

is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.”
added).

28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (emphasis

“[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person

in custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the
traditional function of the writ is to secure release from
illegal custody.”
(1973).

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484

“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 [non-habeas action].”

Muhammad

v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004).
Here, despite Pedreira’s assertion that a § 2241 petition is
an appropriate vehicle to challenge conditions of confinement,
habeas relief is not available with regard to allegations of
inadequate medical treatment.

Such claims do not amount to a

challenge to the fact or duration of confinement.
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action without
prejudice. If Pedreira wishes to assert claims concerning
inadequate medical treatment at FMC Devens, he must bring a nonhabeas civil action.
monetary damages.

This is true even if he is not seeking

The Court will not sua sponte convert a habeas

action into a non-habeas action, especially where Pedreira
explicitly indicates that he “does not wish to institute a Bivens
complaint at this time.”

Pet. at 6.
2

Should Pedreira elect to

bring a non-habeas civil action, he will need to pay a $350
filing fee and a $50 administrative fee.

In the alternative, he

may seek leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee.1
ORDER
In accordance with the foregoing, the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Clerk shall enter

an order dismissing this action.
So ordered.
/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated: 3/20/18

1

Unlike other civil litigants, a prisoner plaintiff who is
allowed to proceed without the prepayment of the filing fee is
not entitled to a complete waiver of the fee. The $50
administrative fee is waived for a prisoner plaintiff proceeding
in forma pauperis, but he still must pay the $350 filing fee over
time, regardless of the outcome of the case. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1)-(2).
3