Santana v. Fischer
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice for reasons stated in this order. A separate final judgment shall issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 4/9/2014. (JS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
FRANCISCO SANTANA, # 13484-050
VERSUS
PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14cv118-CWR-FKB
WARDEN FISCHER
RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
BEFORE THE COURT is pro se Petitioner Francisco Santana’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [1], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and Memorandum in Support [2]. He is incarcerated with
the Bureau of Prisons at the Federal Corrections Complex–Yazoo City. He challenges the conditions
of his confinement while he was previously housed at the McKean Federal Correctional Institution
in Pennsylvania. The Court has considered and liberally construed the pleadings. As set forth
below, this case is dismissed without prejudice.
On February 12, 2014, Santana filed this Petition, specifically invoking § 2241, and he paid
the $5.00 filing fee on April 8. According to the Petition, on September 6, 2009, he was housed at
the FCI-McKean. On that day, his family was visiting with him in the visitation room, when he
became sick at his stomach. He claims that because of something he ate, he had a dire need to use
the restroom, but a certain correctional officer continuously denied Santana’s requests to do so.
Eventually, he claims, he was forced to cut short the visitation and he defecated himself accidentally,
because he was not allowed to use the restroom. He brings claims for cruel and unusual punishment
as well as negligence. As relief he requests a completed investigation into this matter, for the
correctional officer to be sanctioned and reprimanded, and an apology to Santana and his family.
A petitioner may use § 2241 to attack the manner in which his sentence is being executed.
United States v. Cleto, 956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir. 1992). A habeas action is the proper vehicle to seek
speedier release from custody. Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir. 1995). Section 2241 is not
available when a petitioner seeks “injunctive relief unrelated to the cause of his detention.” Rourke
v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, claims challenging the conditions of
confinement are not cognizable under § 2241. Id. Rather, they should be brought in either a civil
rights or Federal Tort Claims action. Spencer v. Bragg, 310 F. App’x 678, 679 (5th Cir. Feb. 18,
2009); Rourke, 11 F.3d at 49.
Petitioner does not seek speedier release from custody. Instead he challenges conditions of
his confinement--the denial of the opportunity to use the restroom and of an uninterrupted visit from
his family. Since § 2241 is not available to provide him relief from such conditions, this action is
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons stated above,
this case should be and is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate final
judgment shall issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 9th day of April, 2014.
s/Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?