Jackson v. Berghuis

Filing 22

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE RELIEF 19 . Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (DPar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DOUGLAS JACKSON,
Petitioner,

Case No. 15-cv-11622

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

MARY BERGHUIS,
Respondent.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE RELIEF
[19]
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. On May 12, 2015, this Court held the petition for writ of habeas corpus in
abeyance to permit Petitioner to return to the state courts to exhaust additional
claims which had not yet been presented to the state courts. The Court conditioned
this tolling upon Petitioner initiating his state court post-conviction remedies
within sixty days of receiving this Court’s order and returning to federal court
within sixty days of completing the exhaustion of his state court post-conviction
remedies.

On July 7, 2015, this Court denied Petitioner’s request for legal

assistance but granted Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file his postconviction motion for relief from judgment.
-1-

Petitioner has filed a motion for protective relief. For the reasons that
follow, the motion is denied without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner claims that while incarcerated at the Baraga Correctional Facility,
he was sexually molested by a corrections officer. Petitioner threatened to report
the incident to a psychologist and ultimately filed a grievance. Petitioner claims
that this corrections officer wrote a misconduct report against him. As a result of
this report, Petitioner was placed in segregation on February 17, 2016.
Petitioner claims that in February of 2016, he asked the prison law librarian
to provide him assistance with the preparation of a motion for superintending
control, so that he could obtain the register of actions from his criminal case.
Petitioner claims that the law librarian imposed a barrier to his access to the courts
by incorrectly advising Petitioner that he would have to file a petition for writ of
mandamus rather than a motion for superintending control. Petitioner further
claims that the law librarian attempted to get Petitioner to sign a contract for the
Legal Writer Program (LWP) to obtain assistance with his motion for
superintending control. On February 20, 2016, a legal writer met with Petitioner.
Petitioner was told that if he did not sign the LWP agreement, the law librarian
would not allow the legal writer to provide him with the legal document that the
-2-

legal writer had prepared for Petitioner.

Petitioner refused to sign the LWP

agreement and claims that he was unable to obtain a copy of the register of actions
from his criminal case. Petitioner claims that on February 26, 2016, he submitted a
prisoner civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to an assistant resident
unit supervisor. Petitioner expected the complaint to be transferred to the law
librarian, so he in turn could give it to the legal writer for assistance with its
preparation. Petitioner claims that he did not receive the required receipt showing
that the legal writer received his documents for preparation.
Petitioner claims that the parties have conspired to violate his civil rights.
Petitioner requests a temporary restraining order to transfer him from the Baraga
Correctional Facility to another prison where he can litigate his civil and criminal
cases without reprisal from prison staff.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Where a prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his or her
physical imprisonment and the relief that he or she seeks is a determination that he
or she is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that
imprisonment, his or her sole federal remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). However, habeas corpus is not
available to prisoners who are complaining only of mistreatment during their legal
incarceration. See Lutz v. Hemingway, 476 F. Supp. 2d 715, 718 (E.D. Mich.
-3-

2007). Complaints which involve conditions of confinement “do not relate to the
legality of the petitioner’s confinement, nor do they relate to the legal sufficiency
of the criminal court proceedings which resulted in the incarceration of the
petitioner.” Id. (quoting Maddux v. Rose, 483 F. Supp. 661, 672 (E.D. Tenn.
1980)). Additionally, a civil rights action, rather than a habeas petition, is the
proper vehicle for a prisoner seeking transfer to another facility. See Wiley v. Holt,
42 F. App’x. 399, 400 (10th Cir. 2002).
Petitioner’s claims involving the conditions at the Baraga Correctional
Facility are challenges to the conditions of confinement. See In re Owens, 525 F.
App’x. 287, 290 (6th Cir. 2013).

Petitioner’s confinement in segregation is

likewise a condition of confinement. See e.g. Frazier v. Hesson, 40 F. Supp. 2d
957, 964–65 (W.D. Tenn. 1999). Moreover, Petitioner’s claim that he is being
denied access to the courts is also a challenge to the conditions of confinement. See
Allen v. Lamanna, 13 F. App’x. 308, 311 (6th Cir. 2001). None of these claims
may be maintained as a habeas action.
Petitioner’s challenges to the conditions of his confinement “fall outside of
the cognizable core of habeas corpus relief.” See Hodges v. Bell, 170 F. App’x.
389, 393 (6th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, Petitioner’s request for transfer would be
more appropriately adjudicated as a civil rights action. The proper course for a
district court after it determines that the substance of a state prisoner’s pro se

-4-

habeas petition is a subject more appropriately reached under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is
to dismiss the petition without prejudice to allow Petitioner to raise his potential
civil rights claims properly as a § 1983 action. See Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d
710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the Court will deny Petitioner’s motion for
protective relief without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for protective relief
[19] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner filing a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2016
Detroit, Michigan

s/Gershwin A. Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to
their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on July 6, 2016.
s/Tanya R. Bankston
TANYA R.BANKSTON
Case Manager & Deputy Clerk

-5-