Bielicki v. Chief U.S. Marshal, et al.
Memorandum of Opinion and Order for the reasons set forth herein this action is dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice to any valid habeas corpus claim Plaintiff may have under the facts alleged. The Court denies as moot or otherwise not actionable Plaintiff's pending 25 motions to correct docketing, stay and/or rescind and/or transfer back to DC, and to order the matter to arbitration with class certification. 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. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 1/30/2017. (E,CK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CHIEF US MARSHAL, et al.,
CASE NO. 4:16CV2677
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 25]
Pro se Plaintiff Jason Bielicki, currently an inmate in the Federal Correctional Institution
in Elkton, Ohio, has filed this in forma pauperis action against Defendants Chief US Marshal,
Warden FCI Elkton, and DSCC Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff
indicates in the caption of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) that he asserts mixed common law and
equity claims for records cancellation and restoration of personal property. ECF No. 1 at PageID
#: 1. He seeks over $13 million in damages, a Rule 65 Order enjoining “all retaliation of any
sort[,]” and de novo review of agency actions and decisions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706. Id. at
PageID #: 9-10. For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Plaintiff’s extensive Complaint is extremely difficult to decipher, but appears to allege
that the Bureau of Prisons miscalculated his sentence by failing to properly credit his time as a
A district court is expressly required to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner
seeking relief from a governmental officer or entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if the
court concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if
the plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A; Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000).
Essentially, Plaintiff claims that his sentence is longer than it should be. The Supreme
Court has held, however, that when a prisoner challenges "the very fact or duration of his
physical imprisonment, ... his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus." Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The dismissal is
without prejudice to any valid habeas corpus claim Plaintiff may have under the facts alleged.
The Court denies as moot or otherwise not actionable Plaintiff’s pending motions to correct
docketing, “stay and/or rescind and/or transfer back to DC”, and to order the matter to arbitration
with class certification. ECF No. 25.
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.
January 30, 2017
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District 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?