Martin v. Bear

Filing 14

ORDER denying 13 Petitioners Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 1/3/16. (ml)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DENNIS MARTIN,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN BEAR,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-1170-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 13], filed
December 22, 2016, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.

Petitioner, a state prisoner

appearing pro se, requests the Court reconsider its previous dismissal of this habeas
action.

Petitioner’s original filing sought habeas relief on the following grounds:

(1) wrongful incarceration; (2) denial of access to the courts, due process, and suspension
of habeas corpus; and (3) violations of various provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution.
See Pet. [Doc. No. 1] at 7.

Upon consideration of the arguments presented, the Court

finds that Petitioner’s Motion should be DENIED.
As previously noted by the Court, Petitioner’s original filing “fails to state any
cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”

R. & R. [Doc. No. 9] at 3.

first ground for relief challenges the validity of his conviction.

Petitioner’s

However, “a § 2241

petition generally cannot be used to challenge the validity of the underlying conviction.”
Cleaver v. Maye, 773 F.3d 230, 232 (10th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1865
(2015).

Because Petitioner is in state custody, the proper vehicle for Petitioner’s

challenge is a § 2254 petition.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

As to Petitioner’s second

ground for relief, denial of access to courts and due process are civil rights claims
properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
880 (10th Cir. 2003) (unpublished).

See Gonzales v. Warden, 55 F. App’x 879,

Further, Petitioner’s suspension-of-habeas-corpus

claim “emanate[s] from state post-conviction proceedings,” and therefore “fail[s] to state
a cognizable claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”

R. & R. [Doc. No. 9] at 6; see

also Sellers v. Ward, 135 F.3d 1333,1339 (10th Cir. 1998).

Finally, Petitioner’s third

ground for relief alleges state law violations which are not properly brought as a federal
habeas action.

See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 865 (10th Cir. 2000).

Therefore, because Petitioner’s grounds for habeas relief are not cognizable claims under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 2017.

2