Fitts et al v. Snyder et al

Filing 117

ORDER Adopting 96 Report and Recommendation and Striking Plaintiff's 67 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (FMos)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Cameron Fitts, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 12-cv-13575
Hon. Judith E. Levy
Mag. Judge Paul Komives

v.
Rick Snyder, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[96] AND STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS [67]
This is a prisoner civil rights case. Pending before the Court is
Magistrate Judge Komives’ Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 96)
recommending the Court strike plaintiff Michael Davis’s Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 67).

The parties were required to file

specific

Judge

written

objections

to

Komives’

Report

and

Recommendation within 14 days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2);
E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d). Plaintiffs Cameron Fitts and Kenneth Wilson
did not file objections.

Plaintiff Michael Davis, however, filed a timely

1

objection.

(Dkt. 99.)

For the reasons that follow, the Report and

Recommendation is ADOPTED.
I.

Background
The Magistrate Judge set forth the factual background of the case

in his Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 96.) The Court adopts this
factual background in full and will only set out facts necessary to
dispose of the pending objections.
Plaintiffs Fitts, Davis, and Wilson are state prisoners proceeding
without the assistance of counsel. They initially filed their complaint
against seventeen defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged
various claims that defendants denied good-time credits based on illegal
administrative rules, subjected plaintiffs to illegal searches and
seizures, and retaliated against plaintiffs by withholding medication.
At present, the only remaining defendants are Van Octen, Rogers,
Hawes, and Vivus. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages
and injunctive relief.
On January 21, 2014, Mr. Davis filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. 67.) On June 11,

2

2014, the Magistrate Judge recommended striking Davis’ petition.
Davis timely objected to the Report and Recommendation.
II.

Standard of Review
The Court reviews de novo the portions of a report and

recommendation to which a specific objection has been made. Lardie v.
Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). Where a specific objection is made, the district judge to whom the
case is assigned “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “As to the

parts of the report and recommendation to which no party has objected,
the Court need not conduct a review by any standard.” Lardie at 807
(citing Key v. Grayson, 163 F. Supp. 697, 701-02 (E.D. Mich. 2001)).
III. Analysis
The Magistrate Judge recommends striking Davis’ petition as
improperly joined with his civil rights action.

Specifically, Judge

Komives first notes that Davis’ petition challenges “the validity of his
underlying conviction, seeks immediate release, and indeed titles his
petition as one seeking habeas corpus relief under § 2254.” (Dkt. 96,
3

Report and Recommendation at 3.) The Report and Recommendation
further concludes that Davis’ habeas petition could not be properly
joined with his civil rights action.
In his Objection, Davis reasserts his claims that the remaining
defendants violated his constitutional rights. He contends that he can
challenge his conviction and sentence at any time and notes that a
petition for habeas corpus is the appropriate avenue for such a
challenge. Davis does not address the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion
that, despite any potential merits of a habeas action, such an action is
not properly brought in a claim under § 1983.
After conducting a de novo review, the Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned conclusions. Davis’s attempt to file a
petition for habeas corpus in this pending § 1983 action is improper. As
the Magistrate Judge correctly notes, to the extent Davis challenges the
fact or duration of his confinement, his sole remedy in federal court is
habeas corpus. (Dkt. 96, Report and Recommendation 3, citing Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480 (1994); see also Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.
Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011) (“Habeas is the exclusive remedy . . . for the
prisoner who seeks immediate or speedier release from confinement”
4

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Davis does not

dispute that he has attempted to file a petition for habeas corpus by
including the petition as part of the pending civil rights case. In fact,
Davis seems to agree that his challenges to the fact and duration of his
confinement are properly brought in a habeas action.

(Dkt. 99,

Objection 3-4.)
Davis objects instead to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
“his appropriate course of action is to file a separate habeas corpus
petition that complies with Rule 2.”

(Dkt. 96, Report and

Recommendation 4.) As the Magistrate Judge points out, “[c]ivil rights
suits and habeas corpus petitions are subject to different filing fees;
different

exhaustion

requirements;

and

different

statutes

of

limitations.” (Id. at 3.) Additionally, a prisoner may only bring one
habeas corpus challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), whereas suits under
§ 1983 are governed by standard res judicata principles. The Court
concludes that it is inappropriate to join Davis’s petition for habeas
corpus with the pending civil rights litigation under § 1983.1

As the Magistrate Judge further noted, this holding expresses “no
opinion on the viability of any habeas corpus petition plaintiff may
choose to file.” (Dkt. 96, Report and Recommendation 4.)

1

5

IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 96) is

ADOPTED. Davis’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is STRICKEN
from the record without prejudice to plaintiff filing a separate habeas
corpus action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2014
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
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 November 18, 2014.
s/Felicia M. Moses
FELICIA M. MOSES

The Magistrate Judge also articulated a second, independent reason for
striking Davis’ petition: the petition fails to comply with the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
(Dkt. 96, Report and Recommendation 4 n.2.) Rule 2(d) requires a
habeas petition to “substantially follow either the form appended to
these rules or a form prescribed by a local district-court rule.” Davis’
petition contains none of the information required by the form. (Dkt.
96, Report and Recommendation 4 n.2.)
6

Case Manager

7