Borazanian v. FCI Elkton Warden Coakley

Filing 3

Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 12/11/12 denying, without prejudice, the petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Related Docs. 1 , 2 ) (M,G)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

DONALD BORAZANIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
J. COAKLEY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:12 CV 2341
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On September 18, 2012, petitioner pro se Donald Borazanian, an inmate at the Federal
Correctional Institution at Elkton, filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.

The petition, and memorandum in support thereof, asserts respondent is opening

Borazanian’s outgoing mail without good cause in violation of the First Amendment.
Habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging the conditions of one's
confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 (1973); Young v. Martin, No. 02-2518,
83 Fed.Appx. 107, 109 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2003); Okoro v. Scibana, No. 1322, 1999 WL 1252871 (6th
Cir. Dec. 15, 1999). Further, the appropriate action to raise petitioner’s claims would be to file a
civil rights complaint.1
Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied, without prejudice to the claims

1

To file a civil rights action, petitioner would be required either to pay the $350
filing fee or to file a prisoner account statement so that the court would have
sufficient financial information to assess and collect the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).

sought to be raised, and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The court 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.

Dated: December 11, 2012

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2