Banks v. Greene et al

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion and Order: this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Further, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), I certify an appeal could not be taken in good faith. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 9/25/2018. (S,AL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Frederick Banks,

Case No. 4:18-cv-0884

Petitioner
v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Sheriff Jerry Greene,
Respondent
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
Pro se Petitioner Frederick Banks, an inmate in the Mahoning County, Ohio Jail, filed the
above-captioned Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner does not
challenge his conviction or his sentence or the fact or length of his pretrial detention in his Habeas
Petition. Instead, he contends: (1) a sheriff’s deputy called him a derogatory name; (2) took him to
another cell without his computer and legal materials needed to continue to file lawsuits; and (3)
would not permit him to purchase books pertaining to the Wicca religion.
In general, habeas corpus is available to prisoners seeking relief from unlawful imprisonment
or custody. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004). Federal prisoners may use 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 to attack the manner in which their sentence is being executed, such as the computation of
sentence credits or parole eligibility. Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing

United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893 (6th Cir. 1991)); Wright v. United States Bd. of Parole, 557 F.2d
74, 77 (6th Cir. 1977). BUt Section 2241 is not available to review questions unrelated to the cause
of detention. Martin, 391 F.3d at 714. Prisoners challenging the conditions of their confinement
must do so through a civil rights action. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-88 (1973). Virtually
every aspect of a prisoner’s daily life that does not affect the duration of his confinement is
considered a “condition of confinement.”
Here, Petitioner is not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement. Rather, he is
challenging general conditions in the jail. These claims are not the proper subjects of a Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is
denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Further, I certify, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
So Ordered.

s/Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge

Banks is a well-established, multi-district, frequent filer, who has brought over 350 cases in the
Northern District of Ohio, the District of Massachusetts, the Southern District of Mississippi, the
District of Columbia, the Southern District of New York, the Western District of New York, the
District of Colorado, the District of Arizona, the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of
Florida, the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Middle and Western Districts of Pennsylvania,
the Eastern District of Missouri, the Eastern District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of
Arkansas, the Western District of Oklahoma, the District of Utah, and the District of Alaska. All of
these cases were dismissed as frivolous. He has been declared to be subject to three strike provision
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) on numerous occasions. Undeterred, Banks utilizes § 2241 to circumvent the
application of § 1915(g).
1

2