Arhebamen v. Bice et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Without Prejudice; Denying Certificate of Appealability; Denying Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARK EHIANETA ARHEBAMEN,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-11627
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.
BICE, et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
I.
Mark Ehianeta Arhebamen (“Petitioner”), an inmate at the Calhoun County Jail in Battle
Creek, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the
suitability of the jail. Specifically, he alleges that he is being denied proper medical care and a
proper vegan diet at the jail. Petitioner requests that he be given a proper vegan diet with
protein, better medical care, including anti-seizure medication for a brain injury, and/or release
from custody. For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to state a
claim upon which habeas relief may be granted and dismisses the petition. The Court also denies
a certificate of appealability and denies leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
II.
Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a
preliminary review of the petition to determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of the
petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court.” Rule 4, RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If, after
preliminary consideration, the Court determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the

Court must summarily dismiss the petition. Id., see also Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th
Cir. 1970) (district court has the duty to “screen out” petitions that lack merit on their face). A
federal district court is authorized to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it plainly
appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
federal habeas relief. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Carson v. Burke, 178
F.3d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1999); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
After undertaking the preliminary review required by Rule 4, the Court concludes that the
petition must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A
petition for a writ of habeas corpus provides the appropriate vehicle for challenging the fact or
duration of a prisoner’s confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 486-87 (1973).
Petitioner is not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement and he raises no challenge to
his criminal proceedings in his petition. Rather, he complains of his treatment at the Calhoun
County Jail. Claims concerning the conditions of confinement are not cognizable in a habeas
action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 (or 2254). See Sullivan v. United States, 90 F.
App’x 862 (6th Cir. 2004) (ruling that § 2241 is not a vehicle for challenging prison conditions);
see also Hodges v. Bell, 170 F. App’x 389, 393 (6th Cir. 2006). Such claims are more properly
brought in a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 498-99;
see also Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004). Because Petitioner’s claims concern his
medical care and nutrition while in state custody and do not concern his criminal proceedings or
the validity of his confinement, he fails to state a claim for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
and his petition must be dismissed.

-2-

III.

-3-

For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon
which federal habeas relief may be granted in his petition. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES
the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a civil
rights complaint in the appropriate court upon the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The
Court makes no determination as to the merits of such a complaint.
Before Petitioner may appeal the Court’s decision, a certificate of appealability must
issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may
issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a court denies relief on the merits, the substantial showing
threshold is met if the petitioner demonstrates that reasonable jurists would find the court’s
assessment of the claim debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).
“A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that . . . jurists could conclude the issues
presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Petitioner has made no such showing. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a
certificate of appealability. The Court also DENIES leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal as an appeal cannot be taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 16, 2012

-4-

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
and Mark Arhebamen by electronic means or
U.S. Mail on April 16, 2012.
s/Carol A. Pinegar
Deputy Clerk

-5-