Hodges v. Bell

Filing 347

ORDER denying 344 Motion for TRO. Signed by District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 12/9/16. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
HENRY HODGES,
Petitioner,
v.
BRUCE WESTBROOKS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:01-cv-00624
JUDGE CRENSHAW

ORDER
Before the Court is Henry Hodges’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Hearing to which the State of Tennessee has responded. (Doc. Nos. 344 and 345.) Mr. Hodges
filed the Motion in a dismissed and closed 28 U.S.C. § 2254 case, which the Sixth Circuit affirmed,
and the Supreme Court denied a writ for certiorari. (Doc. Nos. 333 and 337.) As the Sixth Circuit
affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Hodges’ § 2254 petition, the Court does not have
jurisdiction to hear the Motion.
Mr. Hodges does not request a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254, but instead complains
about his prison conditions. (Doc. No. 344 at 3.) This is not Mr. Hodges’ first attempt to file a
conditions of confinement lawsuit. His previous attempt was rejected by the Sixth Circuit, which
gave him a roadmap on how to proceed to bring a conditions lawsuit. Hodges v. Bell, 170 Fed.
Appx 389, 395 (6th Cir. 2013). See also Muhammed v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)
(“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the
province of habeas corpus; requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be
presented in a § 1983 action.”)

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2