Lard v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 5

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED without prejudice and this action is DISMISSED.(PSSA, 3)

Case 1:21-cv-10936-ADB Document 5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ELLIS LARD,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. 21-cv-10936-ADB

ORDER
BURROUGHS, D.J.
On June 3, 2021, Ellis Lard, who is confined at FMC Devens as a civilly committed
person, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 will deny the petition and dismiss this action.
Lard identifies the ground of his petition as “unlawful forced medication.” Pet. at 6. In
support of this assertion, he represents that he is “made to take an injection every 28 days.” Id. at
7. In his request for relief, Lard states: “Want injection stopped and if court looked medical
1994 format it tells what correctional officers can and can not do to me.” Id. at 8.
Lard’s challenge of involuntary medication is not the proper subject of a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. “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

Case 1:21-cv-10936-ADB Document 5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2

confinement may be presented in a [non-habeas action].” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749,
750 (2004) (per curiam). Here, Lard challenges the conditions of his confinement, specifically
the involuntary administration of medication. A habeas petition is not the proper vehicle for
pursing the relief he requests. See, e.g., Ferch v. Jett, C.A. No. 14-01961, 2015 WL 251766, at
*4 (D. Minn. Jan. 20, 2015) (holding that civilly committed person in a federal facility could not
raise claim of involuntary medication in a habeas action). Rather, Lard must bring a non-habeas
action, such as one styled as a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED without prejudice and
this action is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9/7/2021
DATE

/s/ Allison D. Burroughs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2