Bahrampour v. Lombardo
ORDER granting 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and denying certificate of appealability; Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/9/2018.; Case dismissed. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:17-cv-01862-RFB-VCF
Petitioner, who is a pre-trial detainee facing charges in the Eighth Judicial District Court of
the State of Nevada, has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court finds that petitioner is unable
to pay the filing fee. The court has reviewed the petition. The court dismisses the action because
the petition is clearly without merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
Petitioner alleges that he is not receiving halal meals. This allegation is a matter of the
conditions of petitioner’s confinement, not the validity of petitioner’s confinement. “Habeas corpus
proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the ‘legality or duration’ of
confinement. A civil rights action, in contrast, is the proper method of challenging ‘conditions
of . . . confinement.’” Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 498-99 (1973)). Petitioner needs to present this claim in a civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The remainder of petitioner’s allegations are that he could not have the mens rea needed for
the crimes with which he is charged because the Department of Defense is controlling his brain
through GPS. The court could rule that it should abstain from considering petitioner’s claims
because he is facing criminal charges in state court, but that would assume that petitioner’s claims
are cogent, and they are not. Petitioner’s remaining allegations are completely fantastic, and the
court will not consider them further.1
Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s conclusions to be debatable or wrong, and the
court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.
1) is GRANTED. Petitioner need not pay the filing fee of five dollars ($5.00).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall file the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. The clerk of the court shall
enter judgment accordingly and close this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
DATED: January 9, 2018.
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge
It appears that the state district court is considering whether petitioner is competent. See
State v. Bahrampour, Case No. C-17-323693-1. https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/portal (report
generated October 16, 2017).
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?