Richards v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1 . Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (KWin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRANDON RICHARDS,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:15 cv 13298
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondent.
/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [1]
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Brandon Richards is a federal prisoner residing at a residential reentry center in
Milan, Michigan. He is scheduled to be released from the center on October 8, 2015.
Petitioner filed this action under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241, asserting that on August 30, 2015, he
was written an Incident Report for Refusal and Threatening with Bodily Injury by a staff
member at the reentry center. As a result of the report, Petitioner claims that he was restricted to
the center and was not allowed to continue employment he had obtained outside the center.
II. DISCUSSION
Petitioner filed his application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241. Section 2241
authorizes district courts to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state or federal prisoner who is Ain
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.@ 28 U.S.C.
-1-
' 2241(c)(3). Where a prisoner is challenging the fact or duration of his physical imprisonment
and relief would require a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier
release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). However, habeas corpus is not available to
prisoners who are complaining only of the conditions of their confinement or mistreatment
during their legal incarceration. See Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004); Lutz v.
Hemingway, 476 F. Supp. 2d 715, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2007).
Claims that challenge the conditions of a prisoner=s confinement fall outside of the Acore@
of habeas corpus, Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004), and are not cognizable in a
habeas action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241. See Luedtke v. Berkebile, 704 F.3d 465, 466
(6th Cir. 2013) (A' 2241 is not the proper vehicle for a prisoner to challenge conditions of
confinement.@); Hodges v. Bell, 170 F. App=x 389, 393 (6th Cir. 2006). A federal inmate like
Petitioner may, however, bring claims challenging the conditions of his confinement under
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971);
Richmond v. Schibana, 387 F.3d 602, 605 (7th Cir. 2004) (federal prisoner=s challenge to rules
affecting his placement in community confinement cannot be brought under ' 2241).
Although pro se litigants are treated to less stringent pleading formalities, courts still
require such litigants to meet basic pleading standards. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th
Cir. 1989). Where, as here, claims about conditions of confinement are not cognizable in an
action under ' 2241, the district court must dismiss the habeas action without prejudice to allow
the petitioner to raise his potential civil rights claims properly in a Bivens action. Martin, 391
F.3d at 714. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice.
-2-
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 29, 2015
/s/Gershwin A Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?