GOLLNICK v. Christiansen

Filing 17

OPINION and ORDER Denying 16 MOTION (Letter) to Amend, Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

Case 5:20-cv-11863-JEL-RSW ECF No. 17, PageID.152 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Steven John Gollnick,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil No. 5:20-cv-11863
Honorable Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge

John Christiansen,

Mag. Judge R. Steven Whalen

Respondent.
______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO AMEND
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [16]
Steven John Gollnick, (“Petitioner”), filed a pro se petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which this Court denied
on June 15, 2021. (ECF No. 14.) Petitioner has now sent a letter to the
Court, which is construed as a motion to amend the petition. (See ECF
No. 16.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED without
prejudice to Petitioner filing a new civil rights complaint to bring the
claims that he raises in his letter.
Petitioner’s letter states that prison officials are failing to treat
several of his serious medical conditions. Petitioner requests relief from
this Court.
1

Case 5:20-cv-11863-JEL-RSW ECF No. 17, PageID.153 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 3

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, once a judgment has
been entered in a case, including a habeas case, filing a motion to amend
is not allowed unless the judgment is set aside or vacated. See Bishop v.
Lane, 478 F. Supp. 865, 866–67 (E.D. Tenn. 1978); see also Pitts v.
Champion, 16 F. App’x 975, 977 (10th Cir. 2001). The petition cannot be
amended because judgment has been entered in this case.
Where a prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his
physical imprisonment and the relief that he seeks is a determination
that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that
imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). However, habeas
relief is not available to prisoners whose sole allegations are of
mistreatment during their otherwise legal incarceration. See Lutz v.
Hemingway, 476 F. Supp. 2d 715, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2007). Claims that
challenge the conditions of confinement should be brought as a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. Id. A petition for writ of
habeas corpus is not the proper vehicle for a prisoner’s claim that prison
officials have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, because
release from custody is not generally an available remedy for a deliberate
2

Case 5:20-cv-11863-JEL-RSW ECF No. 17, PageID.154 Filed 08/18/21 Page 3 of 3

indifference claim.1 See In re Owens, 525 F. App’x 287, 290 (6th Cir.
2013). Because Petitioner now challenges only the conditions of his
confinement, his claims “fall outside of the cognizable core of habeas
corpus relief.” See Hodges v. Bell, 170 F. App’x 389, 393 (6th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the motion to amend the petition is denied. The denial
is without prejudice to Petitioner bringing his medical indifference claims
in a new civil rights complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 18, 2021
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 August 18, 2021.
s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

The Court distinguishes the circumstances set forth and relief sought in
Petitioner’s letter from the pretrial relief at issue in Court’s decision in Malam v.
Adducci, 452 F. Supp. 3d 643, 650 (E.D. Mich. 2020), as amended (Apr. 6, 2020),
where the Court held, “where a petitioner claims no set of conditions would be
sufficient to protect her constitutional rights, her claim should be construed as
challenging the fact, not conditions, of her confinement and is therefore cognizable in
habeas.”
1

3