Gould v. Williams County Correctional Center et al

Filing 6

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. dismissing 2 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (General) without prejudice. (BG) Distributed on 3/11/2014 (jt).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
Isaac T.L. Gould, Sr.,
Petitioner,
vs.
W.C.C.C.
Lt. R. Crones
State of North Dakota
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Case No. 4:14-cv-019

Petitioner, Isaac T.L. Gould, Sr. (“Gould”) is a pretrial detainee at the Williams County
Correction Center (“WCCC”) in Williston, North Dakota.1 On February 18, 2014, he filed a Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.2 He asserts four grounds for relief:
Ground One: Inadequate medical care -refused me my proper footwear - and foot rebroke. Foot is still broken - forced to walk on it and endure prolonged pain and
suffering - More spasms due to more nerve damage.
Ground Two: Inadequate Healthcare - Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Right Hand 3rd digit broken in January as of (02-11-14) Still no pain meds - finger - still broken
unusable per P.A. Put today she again ordered x-rays (2nd time) and Motrin.
Ground Three: Physicians Assistant wrote orders for x-rays on 2-04-14 and 600 mg
of Motrin - neither one happened. The jail only picks and choses certain ones to take
care of cruel - unusual punishment - prolonged - causes nerve damage.
Ground Four: No copies of medical requests after seeing Dr, nurses, or physicians
assistant.
1

A cursory review of records available to the public on the North Dakota Supreme Court’s website indicates
that there are a combined eight criminal cases currently pending against Gould in the Williams County district court and
the Williston municipal court.
2

Lieutenant Crones is presumably the individual who has custody over Gould and therefore the proper
respondent. 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (mandating that applications for habeas corpus relief “allege the name of the person who
has custody over the petitioner and by what claim or authority, if known.”). Neither the WCCC nor the State of North
Dakota are not proper respondents, however. Id.

1

(Docket No. 2) (errors in original). He seeks the following relief:
Petitioner requests the court to grant an emergency injunction on/against State of
N.D., W.C.C.C. and staff to prohibit any further subjection of petitioner to cruel and
unusual punishment by State of North Dakota, W.C.C.C. and staff. Furthermore,
petitioner requests immediate release of petitioner from custody on a PR/or bond to
seek proper medical care and that W.C.C.C. incurr all medical costs accrued since
08-08-2013 for said Petitioner. Also W.C.C.C. and staff undergo a federal inquiry
for it’s whole internal workings. Said Petitioner has all ties in this community and
cannot leave without personal damage to his soul financial livelyhood for he and his
family.
(Id.) (errors in original).
Although Gould is seeking his immediate release from custody, his grounds for relief do not
affect the fact or duration of his pretrial detention; he is not challenging the legality of his pretrial
detention and the favorable resolution of this matter does not automatically entitle him to release
from custody. As his claims fall outside the “core” of habeas corpus, they are not cognizable under
the guise of a § 2241 petition. See Merryfield v. Kansas, No. 09–3140, 2009 WL 3125470, at * 2
(D. Kan. Sept. 25, 2009) (“Constitutional attacks upon conditions of confinement that do not affect
the fact or duration of that confinement, are not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief and are
therefore not cognizable in a habeas corpus petition.”); see also Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382,
387 (7th Cir. 2005) (“If an inmate established that his medical treatment amounts to cruel and
unusual punishment, the appropriate remedy would be to call for proper treatment, or to award him
damages; release from custody is not an option.” ); McBarron v. Jeter, 43 Fed. App’x 857 (5th Cir.
2007) (per curiam) (holding that a federal prisoner’s claims of deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs were not cognizable in a federal habeas action); Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714
(6th Cir. 2004) (dismissing a habeas petition without prejudice to allow a prisoner to properly file
his claims as a § 1983 action); Sullivan v. United States, 90 F. App’x 862, 863 (6th Cir. 2004)
2

(opining that Ҥ 2241 is a vehicle not for challenging prison conditions, but for challenging matters
concerning the execution of a sentence.”); Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 544 (3d Cir. 2002)
(“[U]nless the claim would fall within the “core of habeas” and require sooner release if resolved
in the plaintiff's favor, a prison confinement action such as this is properly brought under § 1983.”);
Rael v. Williams, 223 F.3d 1153, 1154 (10th Cir. 2000) (“Petitioner has raised a variety of state law
claims that are not cognizable in habeas. Though the Supreme Court has not set the precise
boundaries of habeas actions, it has distinguished between habeas actions and those challenging
conditions of confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have endorsed this distinction and have
recognized that federal claims challenging the conditions of his confinement generally do not arise
under § 2241.” (internal citations omitted)); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991)
(“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.” (internal citations and quotations omitted)); Warman v. Philips, No.
1:08cv217, 2009 WL 2705833, at *3 (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 25, 2009) (recognizing that a § 2241 petition
typically “may not be used to challenge [an] inmate's conditions of confinement); Smith v. United
States, No. 6:01-2287-13, 2001 WL 34684724, at *5 (D.S.C. May 25, 2001) (citing Belcher v.
Oliver, 898 F.2d 32, 34 (4th Cir. 1990), for the proposition that a prisoner’s claim of denial of
medical care was a civil rights claim as opposed to a habeas claim). The proper vehicle for
presenting claims pertaining to the adequacy of medical treatment in the present context is a civil
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. And it should be noted that, when filing his petition for habeas

3

corpus relief, Gould simultaneously initiated such an action.3
In any event, even if the court were to conclude that Gould’s claims are cognizable under
§ 2241, his petition is still subject to dismissal without prejudice under the Younger abstention
doctrine. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971) (instructing federal courts to refrain from
interfering with pending state criminal proceedings “when the moving party has an adequate remedy
at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.”); see also Gibson v. Orleans
Parish Sheriff, No. 12–2632, 2013 WL 5290014, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 12, 2013) (“A petitioner must
satisfy the Younger abstention hurdles before a court may give habeas relief.”); Burdine v. Burgess,
No. 09–3237–SAC, 2009 WL 4377597, at * 1 (D. Kan. Dec. 2, 2009) (dismissing a pretrial
detainee’s § 2241 habeas application without prejudice pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine).
“The Younger abstention doctrine, as it has evolved, provides that federal courts should
abstain from exercising jurisdiction when (1) there is an ongoing state proceeding, (2) which
implicates important state interests, and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise any relevant
federal questions in the state proceeding.” Plouffe v. Ligon, 606 F.3d 890, 892 (8th Cir. 2010); see
also Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982)
(recognizing that a federal court may involve itself in a pending state proceeding if there is a
showing of “bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make
abstention inappropriate[.]”).
Here, criminal proceedings of paramount importance to the State are currently pending

3

On February 18, 2014, Gould initiated an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with the submission of a proposed
complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Gould v. North Dakota, et. al., Case No. 4:14-cv-018
(D.N.D.). The claims he asserts in the proposed complaint mirror the grounds for relief set forth in the instant habeas
petition.

4

against Gould. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45 (state court criminal matters are of paramount state
interest); see also Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1,14 n. 12 (1987) (recognizing that a state
has an important interest “in protecting the authority of [its] judicial system, so that its orders and
judgments are not rendered nugatory”); Harris v. Gee, No. 8:12–cv–790, 2012 WL 3156589, at *
1 ( M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2012) (“In the interests of comity, federal courts abstain from becoming
involved in state court proceedings with few exceptions. Proper respect for the ability of state courts
to resolve federal questions presented in state-court litigation mandates that the federal court stay
its hand.”). As there is nothing preventing Gould from adequately addressing the fact of his pretrial
detention in state court, this court must stay its hand.
Accordingly, Gould’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket
No. 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Dismissal of the petition is not debatable, reasonably
subject to a different outcome on appeal, or otherwise deserving of further proceedings. Hence, no
appeal may be taken in forma pauperis and no Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2) will be issued. Cf. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 11th day of March, 2014.

/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

5