Archer #615725 v. Hofbauer

Filing 17

OPINION ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN N O R T H E R N DIVISION

R IC K ARCHER #615725, P e titio n e r , v. G E R A L D HOFBAUER, R e s p o n d e n t. ________________________________/ C a s e No. 2:08-cv-5 H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL

O P IN IO N P e titio n e r Rick Archer #615725, a federal prisoner who is currently being in c a rc e ra te d at the Marquette Branch Prison (MBP), filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus p u r s u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the validity of his continued confinement in the Michigan D e p a rtm e n t of Corrections (MDOC). Petitioner contends that his confinement at MBP violates the In te rgo v e rn m e n ta l Agreement (IGA), as well as state and federal law. Petitioner states that the IGA e x p ire d on March 31, 2007, and that his continued confinement by the MDOC is unlawful. P e titio n e r asserts that even if the IGA has been renewed, Respondent violated the terms of the IGA. P e titio n e r claims that he has a liberty interest in being confined in a facility which complies with the IG A , the Michigan Interstate Compact, and other state and federal laws. Petitioner states that he has been denied access to his inmate records under the Fr e e d o m of Information Act and Privacy Act, and that he has been denied adequate health care in v io la tio n of the IGA. In addition, Petitioner states that he has been confined in long term

s e gre ga tio n in violation of his due process rights because he was classified as a member of a Special T h r e a t Group (STG), which also violates the IGA. Petitioner also asserts that he is a Native

A m e ric a n and has been denied the ability to practice his religion because he cannot attend a sweat lo d ge or possess certain objects necessary to his beliefs in violation of the Religious Land Use and In s ti t u tio n a l Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the IGA. Finally, Petitioner claims that Respondent v io la te s the IGA because his confinement constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of th e Eighth Amendment. Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the court must undertake a p re lim in a ry review of the petition to determine whether "it plainly appears from the face of the p e titio n and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." R u le 4, RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the petition must be s u m m a r i l y dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen v Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U .S . 906 (1970) (district court has the duty to "screen out" petitions that lack merit on their face). A dismissal under Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as th o se containing factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 4 3 4 , 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). Petitioner maintains that his conviction was obtained in violation of his federal rights. A s noted above, Petitioner claims that his confinement in the MDOC system violates the IGA. P e titio n e r asserts that he has a liberty interest in being confined within the federal prison system. A s stated by Petitioner, his application for habeas corpus relief is properly analyzed as a petition u n d e r 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As such, Petitioner's application is properly denied. Fowler v. United S ta te s Parole Comm'n, 94 F.3d 835, 837 (3d Cir.1996). Petitioner's claims are meritless because h e has no constitutional right to any particular custody classification. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U .S . 78, 88 n. 9, 97 S. Ct. 274 (1976). Moreover, Petitioner's claims regarding medical care,

-2-

re ligio u s freedom and the lack of amenities are claims regarding the conditions of his confinement. G e n e ra lly, habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for state prisoners attacking the validity of the fa c t or length of their confinement. Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Whereas, 42 U .S.C . § 1983 is used to constitutionally challenge the terms and conditions of confinement. Id. In summary, the Court finds that Petitioner's claims are without merit and therefore w ill dismiss the petition with prejudice. In addition, if petitioner should choose to appeal this action, a certificate of a p p e a la b ility will be denied as to each issue raised by the petitioner in this application for habeas c o rp u s relief. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court must determine whether a certificate of a p p e a la b ility should be granted. A certificate should issue if petitioner has demonstrated a

" su b sta n tia l showing of a denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A dismissal of p e titio n e r's action under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases is a determination that the h a b e a s action, on its face, lacks sufficient merit to warrant service. It would be highly unlikely for th is court to grant a certificate, thus indicating to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that an issue m e rits review, if the court has already determined that the action is so lacking in merit that service is not warranted. See Love v. Butler, 952 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1991) (it is "somewhat anomalous" for th e court to summarily dismiss under Rule 4 and grant a certificate); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 4 9 0 (9th Cir. 1990) (requiring reversal where court summarily dismissed under Rule 4 but granted c e rtific a te ); Dory v. Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York, 865 F.2d 44, 46 (2d Cir. 1 9 8 9 ) (it was "intrinsically contradictory" to grant a certificate when habeas action does not warrant s e rv ic e under Rule 4); Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 n.1 (2d Cir. 1983) (issuing c e rtific a te would be inconsistent with a summary dismissal).

-3-

T h e Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has disapproved issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of appealability. Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2001). Rather, the d is tr ic t court must "engage in a reasoned assessment of each claim" to determine whether a c e r ti f ic a te is warranted. Id. Each issue must be considered under the standards set forth by the S u p re m e Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. A u g. 27, 2001). Consequently, the Court has examined each of petitioner's claims under the Slack s ta n d a r d . U n d e r Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, to warrant a grant of the certificate, "[t]he petitioner m u s t demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the c o n s t it u tio n a l claims debatable or wrong." The Court concludes that reasonable jurists could not fin d that a dismissal of each of Petitioner's claims was debatable or wrong. As noted above, P e titio n e r' s claims concern the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of his c o n fin e m e n t. Therefore, the Court will deny petitioner a certificate of appealability.

Dated: O c to b e r 22, 2008

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-