Knox v. Trammell et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 8 Report and Recommendation. Claims in this matter are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Lee R. West on 12/10/12. (jy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ANTONE LAMANDINGO KNOX
Petitioner,
vs.
ANITA TRAMMELL, Interim Warden,
et aI.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DEC 1 02012

R RT D DEN IS, CLERK
OBE . N
U.S. OlST.COURT, W
ESTERN DIST. OF OKLA.
BY
DEPUTY

.ktJ!v

No. CIV-12-1257-W

ORDER
On November 19,2012, United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell issued a
Report and Recommendation in this matter, wherein he recommended that the Court
dismiss the Ex Parte Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") filed by petitioner
Antone Lamandingo Knox pursuant to title 28, section 2241 of the United States Code.
Knox was advised of his right to object, and the matter now comes before the Court on
Knox's Ex Parte Objection to U.S. Magistrate Judge Report and Recommendation [Doc.

9).
Upon de novo review of the record, the Court concurs with Magistrate Judge
Purcell's suggested disposition of this action. In his Petition, Knox has complained that he
has been involuntarily confined to the mental health unit at Oklahoma State Penitentiary
without notice and an opportunity to be heard and that he has been denied certain rights ,
including the right to seek redress and to earn credits, parole and/or early release, because
of his involuntary commitment under "false pretenses." Doc. 1 at 8. As Magistrate Judge
Purcell has determined, these claims relate to Knox's conditions of confinement rather than
challenge the execution of Knox's sentence.

This Court cannot entertain conditions-of-confinement claims in a habeas action
under section 2241 since title 42, section 1983 of the United States Code provides the
exclusive remedy for such claims.

U, Rael v. Williams,

223 F.3d 1153, 1154 (10 th Cir.

2000)(conditions-of-confinement claims must be brought in section 1983 civil rights action
rather than habeas proceeding). See Knox v. Morgan, No. CIV-12-446-W (W.D . Okla.
June 29, 2012)(section 1983 provides exclusive remedy for conditions-of-confinement
claims); Knox v. Workman, No. CIV-12-260-W (W.D. Okla. April 6, 2012)(conditions of
confinement claims brought by state inmate not cognizable under section 2241); Knox v.
Morgan, No. CIV-10-1274-W (W.D. Okla . September 8, 2011).
Accordingly, the Court
(1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 8] filed on November 19, 2012;
and
(2) DISMISSES the claims in this matter without prejudice to refiling in an action
seeking relief under section 1983, assuming the claims to be asserted are not repetitive
of any claims for relief asserted in lawsuits previously filed by Knox.
ENTERED this/~ day of December, 2012 .

2