Anderson v. Russell

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #4] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the petition, because this acti on shall be dismissed, without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail petitioner two (2) court forms titled Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners remaining pending motions areDENIED as moot. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. 6 4 cc: 2 copies mailed to petitioner. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 6/24/13. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MITCHEL P. ANDERSON,
Petitioner,
v.
TERRY RUSSELL,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-995-SPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the application of Mitchel P. Anderson for
leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee [Doc. #4].
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Upon consideration of the financial information provided
with the application, the Court finds that petitioner is financially unable to pay any
portion of the filing fee, and therefore, he will be granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss this
action without prejudice.
The Petition
Petitioner, an inmate at the Northeast Correctional Center, brings this action
for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner’s allegations arise out
of his confinement at the Eastern Reception and Diagnostic Correctional Center.

Petitioner claims that he was denied medical treatment, as well as access to the law
library and the courts, in violation of his constitutional rights. Petitioner requests this
Court to “issue a habeas corpus and temporary restraining order and/or injunction.”
Discussion
It is a well-settled general principle that a habeas corpus petition is the
appropriate means to challenge the "actual fact or duration" of one's confinement, see
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994), whereas a civil rights claim is the
proper means to challenge the "conditions" of one's confinement. See Viens v.
Daniels, 871 F.2d 1328, 1333 (7th Cir. 1989); see also White v. Gittens, 121 F.3d
803, 807, n. 3 (1st Cir. 1997) (noting applicability of general rule to § 1983 actions
for both declaratory relief and damages). Consistent with this general rule, a
prisoner's claims of failing to diagnose and treat a medical condition against a state
actor, or a claim of denial of access to the courts, may be brought as a civil rights suit
for damages or injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus, to the extent that
petitioner is seeking injunctive relief in the instant action, his recourse is under
section 1983, not habeas corpus. Moreover, the Court notes that, when, as in the
instant case, a prisoner has been transferred to a new correctional facility, his claims
for injunctive and declaratory relief are properly denied as moot. See Gladson v.
Iowa Department of Corrections, 551 F.3d 825, 835 (8th Cir.2009); Pratt v.
2

Correctional Corp. of America, 267 Fed. Appx. 482 (8th Cir.2008); Smith v. Hundley,
190 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir.1999).
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss the instant habeas petition, but notes
that dismissal is without prejudice to filing a future habeas corpus action, following
exhaustion of state remedies,1 or to any constitutional claims which petitioner may
bring in this Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. #4] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause
process to issue upon the petition, because this action shall be dismissed, without
prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail petitioner two
The Court notes that, even if the instant action had been properly brought
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the action would be subject to dismissal, because there is
no indication that petitioner has exhausted his available state remedies. In the
absence of exceptional circumstances, a state prisoner must exhaust currently
available and adequate state remedies before invoking federal habeas corpus
jurisdiction. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484
(1973). State remedies are ordinarily not considered exhausted if an individual
may effectively present his claim to the state courts by any currently available and
adequate procedure. The State of Missouri provides habeas corpus relief for
prisoners in its custody. See Rev. Mo. Stat. § 532.010 (1994), Missouri Supreme
Court Rule 91.01.
1

3

(2) court forms titled “Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s remaining pending motions are
DENIED as moot.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 24th day of June, 2013.

/s/ Jean C. Hamilton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4