Klein v. Chandler

Filing 6

Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations re: 4 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Ira Klein. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L Cureton no longer assigned to case. Petition under 28 USC 2241 is dismissed w/o prej to Klein's right to assert such claims in a civil rights action. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 6/11/2013) (wrb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
IRA KLEIN,
Petitioner,
VS.
RODNEY CHANDLER, Warden,
FCI-Fort Worth,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO.4:13-CV-372-Y

ORDER ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In this action brought by petitioner Ira Klein under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, the Court has made an independent review of the following
matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:
1.

The pleadings and record;

2.

The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the United States magistrate judge filed on May 8, 2013;
and

3.

The petitioner's written objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United
States magistrate judge filed on May 21, 2013.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that the Petitioner’s objections must be overruled, and the petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed, for the
reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions
and as set forth herein.
As noted by the magistrate judge, in this action, Ira Klein
does not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, but
instead complains that he is being subjected to a deprivation of
his serious medical needs in violation of his rights under the
Eighth Amendment. (§ 2241 Petition at 8-19.) Thus, his claims are

outside the scope of a § 2241 petition.1 As the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reiterated in noting that
a federal prisoner’s challenges to the conditions of her confinement should be raised in an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents,2 “[a]llegations that challenge the fact or duration
of confinement are properly brought in habeas petitions, while
allegations that challenge rules, customs, and procedures affecting
conditions of confinement are properly brought in civil rights
actions.”3 For this additional reasons, Klein’s objections are
overruled.
Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the magistrate judge are ADOPTED.
Ira Klein’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 is DISMISSED without prejudice to Klein’s right to assert
such claims in a civil-rights action.
SIGNED June 11, 2013.
____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

See Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935 (5th Cir. 1976)(“Simply
stated, habeas is not available to review questions unrelated to the cause of
detention”).
2

403 U.S. 388 (1971).

3

Schipke v. Van Buren, 239 Fed. Appx. 85, 85-86 (5th Cir. Aug. 30, 2007).

2