Lewis v. Upton
Filing
17
Opinion and Order: For the reasons discussed herein, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED. Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), for the reasons discussed herein, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Any motions not previously ruled upon are also DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 7/29/2014) (aaa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
REGINA LEWIS,
Petitioner,
VS.
JODY R. UPTON, WARDEN,
FMC-CARSWELL,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:14-CV-180-O
(Consolidated with No. 4:14-CV-264-O)
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed
by Petitioner Regina Lewis, a pretrial detainee who was confined in the Federal Medical CenterCarswell (FMC-Carswell) in Fort Worth, Texas, when this petition was filed, against Respondent
Jody R. Upton, Warden of FMC-Carswell. After considering the pleadings and relief sought by
Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be denied.
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is awaiting trial in the Southern District of New York for criminal charges related
to threats she made against a federal judge. United States v. Lewis, No. 1:12-CR-00655-VSB-1
(S.D.N.Y.). She has been continuously detained since July 26, 2012, save for a brief release on bail,
for violation of the conditions of her release, as a flight risk and/or danger to the community under
18 U.S.C. §§ 3142, or under temporary commitment orders pursuant to § 4241(d). Resp’t’s App.
6-8, 30-31, 34, ECF No. 14. Relevant to this case is the January 6, 2014 commitment order entered
by the Southern District finding Petitioner mentally incompetent to stand trial under § 4241(d) and
civilly committing her for treatment for a period not to exceed four months. Resp’t’s App. 6-8, ECF
No. 14. The commitment order was stayed for three days to allow Petitioner an opportunity to
appeal, but she did not do so. Id. 8. Petitioner was sent to FMC-Carswell for treatment but has since
been determined to be mentally competent and returned to the State of New York. Mot. & Status
Request, ECF Nos. 15-16. On July 18, 2014, the Southern District commenced jury selection in
Petitioner’s criminal case but, because of her conduct before the jury, the court aborted the
proceedings, declared a mistrial, appointed counsel to represent Petitioner, who was representing
herself pro se, and ordered reassignment of the case to another judge. Order, United States v. Lewis,
No. 1:12-CR-00655-UA-1, ECF No. 89. A status conference scheduled for July 25, 2014, was
adjourned, and the case remains pending. Id., ECF No. 91.
II.
DISCUSSION
By this petition, Petitioner challenges her continued pretrial confinement and the conditions
of her confinement at FMC-Carswell. Pet. 1, ECF No. 1.
Habeas relief “is not available to review questions unrelated to the cause of detention.”
Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935 (5th Cir. 1976). Where “a prisoner challenges an
unconstitutional condition of confinement or prison procedure that affects the timing of his release
from custody,” the proper vehicle is a civil-rights action if a determination in the prisoner’s favor
will not automatically result in his or her accelerated release. Thus, to the extent Petitioner’s claims
relate to the conditions of her confinement or prison procedures at FMC-Carswell, the claims are not
cognizable on habeas review. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th Cir.
1997). Furthermore, Petitioner is no longer confined at FMC-Carswell. Thus, any such claims are
now moot.
To the extent Petitioner challenges her pretrial confinement, her claims are properly brought
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. United States v. Boigegrain, 155 F.3d 1181, 1186 (10th Cir. 1998), cert.
2
denied, 525 U.S. 1083 (1999). However, she was temporarily committed to FMC-Carswell for the
limited purpose of determining whether she was mentally competent to stand trial and the fourmonth commitment order has expired. Furthermore, the Southern District has considered and
rejected Petitioner’s claims regarding the legality of her continued pretrial detention. Resp’t’s App.
20-48, ECF No. 14. For the reasons discussed in that court’s July 18, 2014 “Order and Opinion
Denying Motions to Dismiss Indictment and for Release from Detention,” this Court finds
Petitioner’s claims lack merit. Resp’t’s App. 20-52, ECF No. 14. Finally, to the extent Petitioner
sought release from civil commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), jurisdiction lies in the district
court in which the commitment occurred. 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(e), 4247(h).
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED. Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), for the reasons discussed
herein, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Any motions not previously ruled upon are also
DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this 29th day of July, 2014.
_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?