Balladares v. Jaramillo et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James O. Browning, recharacterizing the Plaintiff's Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint 1 as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2241; the Clerk of the Court is direc ted to substitute Raymond Smith, warden at Lea County Correctional Facility, as the sole named respondent; denying Plaintiff's Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915 2 ; and the Plaintiff must submit the five dollar filing fee, or show cause for his failure to do so, within thirty days of the date of entry of this order. (meq)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
OSCAR BALLADARES,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No. CIV 17-1152 JB/CG

ROSE JARAMILLO and BENJAMIN
LUJAN,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, on
(i) Prisoner’s Civil Rights Complaint, filed November 20, 2017 (Doc. 1)(“Complaint”); and
(ii) Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, filed
November 20, 2017 (Doc. 2)(“Balladares Aff.”). For the reasons explained below, the Court will
recharacterize Plaintiff Oscar Balladares’ Complaint as a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, substitute Raymond Smith as the sole named respondent, deny Balladares’
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and require Balladares to submit the five dollar filing fee
within thirty days of the date of this order’s entry.
Balladares, who is proceeding pro se, is incarcerated at the Lea County Correctional
Facility, in Hobbs, New Mexico. In his Complaint, Balladares alleges that Defendants Rosie
Jaramillo and Benjamin Lujan deprived him of his right to due process of law under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America during a disciplinary
proceeding, which resulted in the loss of his good time credits. See Complaint ¶¶ 1-5, at 7.
Balladares seeks a declaration that Jaramillo and Lujan violated his rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment, dismissal of the misconduct report, and restoration of his good time credits. See
Complaint at 5.
An action challenging “prison disciplinary proceedings, such as the deprivation of goodtime credits is not challenging prison conditions, it is challenging an action affecting the fact or
duration of the petitioner’s custody.” McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th
Cir. 1997)(emphasis in original). “[A] prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his
confinement and seeks immediate release or a shortened period of confinement must do so
through an application for habeas corpus.” Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th
Cir. 2012). Therefore, “[t]he sole remedy in federal court for a prisoner seeking restoration of
good-time credits is a writ of habeas corpus” under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Edwards v. Balisok, 520
U.S. 641, 643-44 (1997). See Brown v. Smith, 828 F.2d 1493, 1495 (10th Cir. 1987)(“If [the
petitioner] can show that his due process rights were violated in the subject disciplinary
proceedings, then § 2241 would be the appropriate remedy to use to restore his good time
credits.”).
Balladares’ request for declaratory relief also is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a §
1983 complaint must be dismissed if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the
conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” 512 U.S. at 487. The Heck v. Humphrey
doctrine applies to requests for declaratory relief that would imply the invalidity of a prison
disciplinary proceeding or the punishment imposed. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. at 648
(holding that the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine bars the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim seeking a
declaration that the procedures used in his disciplinary proceeding violated his Fourteenth

-2-

Amendment due process rights). The declaratory relief sought by Balladares necessarily would
imply the invalidity of his disciplinary proceeding and the punishment imposed, and, therefore,
Balladares’ claims are “not cognizable under § 1983.” Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. at 648.
“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,” so as
to “avoid an unnecessary dismissal” or “to create a better correspondence between the substance
of a pro se motion’s claims and its underlying legal basis.” Castro v. United States, 540 U.S.
375, 791-92 (2003). Indeed, “[a] pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and held
to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). In determining the nature of a pro se litigant’s claims, the Court is
guided by the relief sought. See Farrell v. Ramsey, 28 F. App’x 751, 753-54 (10th Cir. 2001)
(unpublished)1(holding that the district court should have construed the plaintiff’s civil rights
complaint as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, “because it was clear from his complaint and
supplemental complaint that he did not seek money damages but rather only relief from the
execution of his sentence”). Because the relief sought in Balladares’ civil rights Complaint is
available only in a § 2241 proceeding, the Court will recharacterize his Complaint as a § 2241
writ of habeas corpus.
In a § 2241 habeas proceeding, “the default rule is that the proper respondent is the
1

Farrell v. Ramsey, is an unpublished Tenth Circuit opinion, but the Court can rely on an
unpublished Tenth Circuit opinion to the extent its reasoned analysis is persuasive in the case
before it. See 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A), 28 U.S.C. (“Unpublished opinions are not precedential, but
may be cited for their persuasive value.”). The Tenth Circuit has stated: “In this circuit,
unpublished orders are not binding precedent, . . . and . . . citation to unpublished opinions is not
favored . . . . However, if an unpublished opinion . . . has persuasive value with respect to a
material issue in a case and would assist the court in its disposition, we allow a citation to that
decision.” United States v. Austin, 426 F.3d 1266, 1274 (10th Cir. 2005). The Court concludes
that Farrell v. Ramsey has persuasive value with respect to a material issue, and will assist the
Court in its preparation of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
-3-

warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 436
(2004). Balladares is incarcerated at the Lea County Correctional Facility and, therefore, Smith,
the Lea County Correctional Facility warden, will be substituted as the sole named respondent.
The filing fee for this habeas proceeding is five dollars. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).
According to the financial affidavit and information that Balladares submitted, he has sufficient
funds available to prepay the five dollar filing fee. See Balladares Aff. at 2. The Court will,
therefore, deny Balladares’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Balladares must pay the five dollar filing fee within thirty days of the date of this order’s
entry or show cause for his failure to do so. Failure timely to pay the filing fee, or to show cause,
may result in the dismissal of this action without further notice.
IT IS ORDERED that: (i) the Plaintiff’s Prisoner’s Civil Rights Complaint, filed
November 20, 2017 (Doc. 1) is recharacterized as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241; (ii) the Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute Raymond Smith, warden at Lea
County Correctional Facility, as the sole named respondent; (iii) Plaintiff’s Prisoner’s Motion
and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, filed November 20, 2017
(Doc. 2) is denied; and (iii) the Plaintiff must submit the five dollar filing fee, or show cause for
his failure to do so, within thirty days of the date of entry of this order.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Parties:
Oscar Balladares
Lea County Correctional Facility
Hobbs, New Mexico
Plaintiff pro se
-4-