Turner v. Cassady

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Billy Ray Turner's Motion for Relief [ECF No. 18], Motion for Hearing, Federal Injunction, Order to Show Cause, and Immediate Restraining Order Against the Mailroom Clerk [ECF No. 19] , Supplemental Motion for Protective Order Requesting Obstruction of Justice Inquiry [ECF No. 24], Motion for Petition for Contempt Citation [ECF No. 27], and Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 29] be and they are DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on July 29, 2014. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BILLY RAY TURNER, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
JAY CASSADY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13CV02470 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Billy Ray Turner’s Motion for Relief
[ECF No. 18], Motion for Hearing, Federal Injunction, Order to Show Cause, and Immediate
Restraining Order Against the Mailroom Clerk [ECF No. 19], Supplemental Motion for
Protective Order Requesting Obstruction of Justice Inquiry [ECF No. 24], Motion for Petition for
Contempt Citation [ECF No. 27], and Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 29].
On December 9, 2013, Petitioner Billy Ray Turner, Jr., an inmate currently housed at the
Jefferson City Correctional Center (JCCC), filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody [ECF No. 1]. Petitioner alleges, while at JCCC, he
was sent documents containing evidence of his actual innocence, and therefore pertinent to his
pending § 2254 Motion. He contends JCCC officials are improperly censoring and withholding
these documents, and he states the Assistant Attorney General has failed to properly serve him
with filings in this case. In his instant Motions, Petitioner seeks a variety of forms of relief,
including: a hearing; an order of contempt; the appointment of counsel; compulsory process and
writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum; discharge of the Assistant Attorney General; an
injunction against the censoring of his mail by JCCC staff; and other forms of equitable relief.

The Court denies Petitioner’s Motions for three reasons. First, Petitioner’s complaints
are not appropriately addressed in a § 2254 case. That is, “[f]ederal law opens two main avenues
to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
and a complaint under . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004).
While habeas corpus relief contemplates “[c]hallenges to the validity of any confinement or to
particulars affecting its duration,” circumstances and conditions of confinement are the province
of a § 1983 action. Id. In the instant Motions, Petitioner is attempting to challenge the
conditions of his confinement, not the validity or duration of his confinement. Because his
claims are not “at odds with his conviction or . . . the underlying sentence,” they should be
presented as a § 1983 action. Clark v. Bakewell, No. 4:07CV166, 2007 WL 2572442, at *5 (D.
Neb. Sept. 5, 2007) (quoting Muhammad, 540 U.S. at 751).
Second, Petitioner has failed to show any merit to his allegations JCCC officials are
improperly withholding his mail. “Regulations involving the review of incoming mail in prisons
need only be ‘reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.’” Murphy v. Mo. Dept. of
Corrs., 372 F.3d 979, 985 (8th Cir. 2004); Kaden v. Slykhuis, 651 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 2011).
Deciding the validity of mail censorship policies involves considering:
(1) whether there is a rational connection between the regulation and a neutral and
legitimate governmental interest; (2) whether alternative means exist for the
inmates to exercise their constitutional rights; (3) the impact of accommodating
that right on other inmates and prison personnel; and (4) whether reasonable
alternatives to the regulation exist.
Slykhuis, 651 F.3d at 968. Here, the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) prohibits
inmates from receiving victim information and memorabilia; Petitioner’s allegedly exculpatory
documents were withheld for this reason. Petitioner has not attempted to show this DOC policy

-2-

lacks a reasonable relationship to legitimate penological interests. Thus, Petitioner’s Motions
lack merit.
Finally, Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e; Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 525-26
(2002). The record shows Petitioner has begun the grievance process, but has not yet completed
it. See ECF No. 28-2. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to establish his claims are ripe for judicial
adjudication.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Billy Ray Turner’s Motion for Relief [ECF
No. 18], Motion for Hearing, Federal Injunction, Order to Show Cause, and Immediate
Restraining Order Against the Mailroom Clerk [ECF No. 19], Supplemental Motion for
Protective Order Requesting Obstruction of Justice Inquiry [ECF No. 24], Motion for Petition for
Contempt Citation [ECF No. 27], and Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 29] be and they are
DENIED.
So Ordered this 29th day of July, 2014.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-