Manygoat v. Havel
ORDER to Cure Defects by Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea. (sls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
THOMAS C. HAVEL,
ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENCY
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Herbert Manygoat’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, which was docketed as a prisoner rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
[Doc. 1]. Plaintiff, who is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, challenges the conditions of his
confinement at the San Juan County Detention Center, contending that he was deprived of due
process of law during a disciplinary hearing. [Doc. 1 at 2]. Plaintiff seeks an order “dismiss[ing]
sanctions” and awarding “compensatory damages.” [Doc. 1 at 2].
“Federal courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a
motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category . . . to
avoid an unnecessary dismissal . . . to avoid inappropriately stringent application of formal
labeling requirements . . . or to create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se
motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis.” Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 380 (2003).
Although Plaintiff’s pleading is titled “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” it does not challenge
the validity of his detention or the length of his confinement, but rather challenges the conditions
of his confinement. [See Doc. 1 at 1]. It is well established that a civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 “is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to
the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973). Furthermore, “[i]n the case of a damages claim, habeas corpus is not
an appropriate or available remedy.” Id. at 494. Because Plaintiff seeks damages for the alleged
unconstitutional conditions of his confinement, the Court liberally will construe Plaintiff’s Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus as a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that “[a] pro se litigant’s pleadings are to
be construed liberally” and “if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on
which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so”).
The filing fee for a civil rights action is $400 (civil/administrative). Plaintiff has not paid
the filing fee or, alternatively, filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff must cure this deficiency by submitting,
within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this order, either: (1) the $400 filing fee; or (2) an
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and a certified copy of
his inmate account statement for the preceding six-month period pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(2). Failure to timely cure this deficiency, or to show cause for his failure to do so, may
result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint without prejudice without further notice.
Papers filed in response to this order must include the civil action number of this proceeding (No.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this
Order, Plaintiff must either: (1) pay the $400 filing fee; or (2) submit an Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and a certified copy of his inmate account
statement for the preceding six-month period.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to send to Plaintiff,
together with a copy of this order, a form Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs, and instructions.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?