Saldana et al v. Perego et al

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER... After having considered the habeas petition and relief sought by the plaintiffs, the Court has concluded that the petition should be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 3/31/2015) (wxc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
MARCO SALDANA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
ZOE PEREGO, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-227-Y

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a pleading entitled “Habeas Corpus Relief
Under 28 USC 2241,” sent by inmate Tyson Johnson, prisoner ID
number KU7801, on behalf of Marco Saldana and thirty-five other
“Plaintiffs,” to the Clerk of Court for filing. (Pet. 1, envelope,
ECF No. 1.) After having considered the habeas petition and relief
sought by the “plaintiffs,” the Court has concluded that the
petition should be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
I.

Factual and Procedural History

No form § 2241 habeas petition was filed.1
filed

the

above-referenced

pleading,

wherein

Instead, Johnson
he

asserts

punctuation and grammatical errors are in the original):
Comes now, the plaintiffs, collectively, former inmates
of the Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, TDCJ filing this
habeas corpus petition challenging the conditions of
incarceration while illegally detained in Fort Worth
Texas and other TDCJ institutions in Hobby, Marlin Texas,
Huntsville, Gatesville.
The manner in which our
sentences were executed is unconstitutional and cruel and

1

Nor was the applicable filing fee submitted.

(all

unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.
FACTS
Plaintiffs were illegally incarcerated by the Defendants
from 2006-2014 and Defendants committed a deliberate
indifference on Plaintiffs lives under Farmer v. Brennan.
The Defendants don’t provide air conditioners which
caused heat exhaustion on Plaintiffs, heat stroke and
sickness,
vomiting
and
hives.
Defendants
are
responsible.
Defendants provided inadequate diets.
Plaintiffs only received 1725 calories a day.
Each
Plaintiff lost weight, had tape worms. Plaintiffs didn’t
get vitamin C, no protein by Defendants. Plaintiffs were
denied telephone access and 4 people to a cell with 110E
heat, it was brutal.
Defendants provided no medical
care, no dental work, no teeth cleaning.
Defendants
denied Plaintiffs bedding and sheets. Plaintiffs were
denied pillows. Plaintiffs were denied indigent packets
of soup, toothpaste, tooth brush. Plaintiffs were denied
vocational training.
Each Plaintiff is on parole in
Texas in other states were Defendants placed illegal
detainers on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek the removal of
these detainers and better conditions in prison.
Relief
1)
2)
3)
4)

Plaintiffs seek due process.
Plaintiffs seek at least 2600 calories a day
provided by law.
Plaintiffs seek at least 6 hours in the law library
- required by law.
Plaintiffs seek air conditioning in the prison
system.

(Pet. 1-2, ECF No. 1.)
The petition, signed by the thirty-six purported “plaintiffs,”
reflects that the “plaintiffs” reside in fifteen different states
and that none of the “plaintiffs” are currently confined in either
the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (TDCJ) or the Fort Worth jail, save for Nicole
Thomas and Loretta Maxie who are both currently confined at the
2

Hobby Unit of TDCJ in Marlin, Texas.2
II.
Title

28,

United

State

Discussion
Code,

section

2243

authorizes

a

district court to summarily dismiss a frivolous habeas-corpus
petition prior to any answer or other pleading by the government.3
Therefore, no service has issued upon “Defendants.”
The writ of habeas corpus does not extend to a prisoner
unless–
(1) He is in custody under or by color of the
authority of the United States or is committed for trial
before some court thereof; or
(2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in
pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process,
judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United
States; or
(3) He is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; or
(4) He, being a citizen of a foreign state and
domiciled therein is in custody for an act done or
omitted under any alleged right, title, authority,

2

The Court notes that in February 2015 a substantially similar petition,
in what appears to be the same handwriting, was sent by inmate Christopher
Donnelly, prisoner ID number JK5048, who is incarcerated in the same prison
facility as Johnson and named “plaintiff” Wade Albright in Bellefonte,
Pennsylvania. Pet., Donnelly v. Breivik, No. 4:15-CV-085-Y, ECF No. 1. That
petition was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on February 9,
2015.
3

Section 2243, governing applications for writ of habeas corpus, provides:

A Court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a
writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an
order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not
be granted, unless it appears from the application that the
applicant or person is not entitled thereto.
28 U.S.C. § 2243 (emphasis added).

3

privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the
commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or
under color thereof, the validity and effect of which
depend upon the law of nations; or
(5) It is necessary to bring him into court to
testify or for trial.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c).
Moreover, a federal court must have jurisdiction over a
prisoner or his custodian at the time a § 2241 is filed.
Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2001).

Lee v.

The “petitioners” have

neither alleged nor demonstrated that they fall within one of the
listed classes of persons who can petition for habeas corpus in
federal court or that they are confined within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443
(2004).

Further,

challenges

to

an

inmate’s

conditions

of

confinement are properly brought in civil rights suits under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

Accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction to

entertain “plaintiffs” habeas petition under § 2241.
For the reasons discussed, the Court DISMISSES the petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 brought by
Marco Saldana on behalf of “plaintiffs” for lack of jurisdiction.
SIGNED March 31, 2015.

____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4