Simons v. Spoony

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the request for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. An appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge John R. Adams on 3/16/16. (K,C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
DAVID B. SIMONS,
Petitioner,
v.
ACTING WARDEN, B. SPOONY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16 CV 0072
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Petitioner, a federal inmate at the Elkton Correctional Institution, has filed this habeas corpus
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241, seeking release from incarceration on the ground that he is
“being denied meaningful access to the valid Laws” of the United States in violation of his
constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fifth Amendments.
However, a §2241 habeas petition is not the appropriate vehicle for a prisoner to challenge
the conditions of his confinement, as the petitioner does here. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
475, 498-99 (1973); Sullivan v. United States, 90 F. App'x 862, 863 (6th Cir. 2004) ( “[Section] 2241
is a vehicle not for challenging prison conditions, but for challenging matters concerning the
execution of a sentence such as the computation of good-time credits.”). In order to seek relief
concerning the conditions of his confinement, the petitioner must file a civil rights action.1

To bring a civil rights action, the petitioner would have to file a complaint in a new case,
and either pay the $400 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis, accompanied by
a certified prisoner account statement, in order for the court to assess and collect the appropriate
fee. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1).
1

Accordingly, this action for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice pursuant
28 U.S.C. §2243. The court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from
this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED:

3/16/16