Leyva-Ruiz v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 12 Report and Recommendations. It is further ordered THAT THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1 is dismissed with prejudice.A final judgment shall be entered of even date herewith pursuantto Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by District Judge David C. Bramlette, III on 6/16/2020 (PG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
OMAR LEYVA-RUIZ
V.

PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-31-DCB-MTP

WARDEN STEPHEN D. JULIAN

RESPONDENT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michael
T. Parker’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 12], to which no
objections have been filed. Having carefully reviewed said report,
the Court finds it to be well taken and hereby adopts it as the
findings and conclusions of this Court.
Petitioner is requesting a transfer to another correctional
facility through a Writ of Habeas Corpus. However, Petitioner’s
request should have been pursued in an 18 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
Therefore, Magistrate Judge Parker has found that the Petitioner
cannot pursue his claim through a Writ of Habeas Corpus and,
accordingly, recommends that Petitioner’s motion pursuant to 28
U.S.C § 2241 should be dismissed with prejudice.
When an action challenges the fact or duration of an inmate’s
confinement, it is a Habeas Corpus matter. Jackson v. Torres, 720
F.2d 877, 879 (5th Cir. 1983). Challenges regarding conditions of
confinement are properly pursued as civil rights challenges under
Section 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed.

1

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Cook v. Texas Dep’t
of Criminal Justice Transitional Planning Dep’t., 37 F.3d 166, 168
(5th Cir. 1994). The Fifth Circuit has “adopted a simple, brightline rule” in deciding whether an action should be brought as a
Writ of Habeas Corpus or as a Section 1983 action. Carson v.
Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1997). If “a favorable
determination of an inmate’s claim would not automatically entitle
the inmate to accelerated release, the proper vehicle is a Section
1983 suit.” Id.
As stated by Magistrate Judge Parker, the Petitioner “is
seeking a transfer to another facility where he may be eligible
for entry into programs that could reduce his sentence.” “Prisoners
who raise constitutional challenges to other prison decisions –
including transfers to administrative segregation, exclusion from
prison programs, or suspension of privileges, e.g., conditions of
confinement, must proceed under section 1983 or Bivens.” Boyce v.
Ashcroft, 251 F.3d 911, 914 (10th Cir. 2001). The proper vehicle
for raising Petitioner’s claim would be a civil rights suit.
Magistrate

Judge

Parker

further

states

that

“because

Petitioner does not meet the bright-line test established by the
Fifth Circuit – that a favorable determination will automatically
entitle him to accelerated release – Petitioner cannot pursue his
claim [for a Writ of Habeas Corpus]. Thus, the Court may dismiss
this Habeas action without further analysis.” The Court finds

2

Magistrate Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation to be well
taken.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Parker’s Report
and Recommendation [ECF No. 12] is ADOPTED as the findings and
conclusion of this Court. It is further ordered THAT THE PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [ECF NO. 12] is dismissed with prejudice.
A final judgment shall be entered of even date herewith pursuant
to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED this the 16th day of June,

2020.

_/S/ David Bramlette________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3