Cheek v. Warden of FMC et al

Filing 5

Opinion and Order... For the reasons discussed, Petitioners petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction, no ruling is made on Petitioners motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 7/1/2020) (wxc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
JOHN CHEEK, et al., on their own
and on behalf of those similarly
situated,
Petitioners,
v.
WARDEN, FMC-Fort Worth, and
MICHAEL CARVAJAL, Director,
Federal of Bureau of Prisons,
Respondents.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-677-P

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a pleading entitled “Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Injunctive and Declaratory Relief” (ECF No. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 sent by
petitioner John Cheek to the clerk of Court for filing. After having considered the habeas
petition and relief sought by Petitioners, the Court has concluded that the petition should be
summarily dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner is confined in FMC-Fort Worth pursuant to his 2011 convictions for bank
robbery and using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during or in relation to a crime of
violence in the Dallas division of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas. J., United States v. Cheek, PACER, U.S. Party/Case Index, Criminal Docket for
Case # 3:11-cr-00157-D-1, ECF No. 31. By way of this petition, Petitioner complains of the
conditions of his confinement and that of similarly situated prisoners at FMC-Fort Worth,

including the medically-vulnerable subclass, and seeks release under “28 U.S.C. § 2241
(habeas corpus); 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act); Article 1, § 9, cl. 2 of the U.S.
Constitution (Suspension Clause); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal question jurisdiction); and 28
U.S.C. § 1346 (United States as a defendant),” because of the extraordinary conditions
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
II. DISCUSSION
Title 28, United State Code, § 2243 authorizes a district court to summarily dismiss
a frivolous habeas-corpus petition prior to any answer or other pleading by the government.1
Therefore, no service has issued upon Respondents.
Generally, in this circuit, habeas relief is not available to review questions unrelated
to the cause of a prisoner’s detention. Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935 (5th Cir.
1976). Its sole function of habeas is to grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody,
and it cannot be used properly for any other purpose. Id. at 935-36. Where a prisoner
challenges the conditions of his confinement or prison procedures, the proper vehicle is a
civil rights action if a determination in the prisoner’s favor would not automatically result
in his accelerated release. Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1997).

1

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 detained
is not entitled thereto.
28 U.S.C. § 2243 (emphasis added).

2

Petitioners do not challenge the validity of their sentences or convictions or the BOP’s
administrative calculation of their release dates, which is the traditional “essence” of habeas
corpus. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 484, 498-500. It is the nature of the substantive legal claim
itself and the pertinent factual allegations–in addition to the relief sought–that determines
whether the claim challenges “the validity of confinement” and thus sounds in habeas corpus.
Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579-81 (2006). Petitioners’ claims challenging
unconstitutional conditions of confinement do not sound in traditional habeas corpus, even
though they seek release from confinement. Thus, a § 2241 habeas petition is not the proper
vehicle for raising their claims, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition. See
Provines v. Wilson, No. 4:20-CV-475-O, 2020 WL 2762563, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 20,
2020); Sanchez v. Brown, No. 3:20-CV-832-E, 2020 WL 2615931, at *12 (N.D. Tex. May
22, 2020). Nor does Petitioner establish an alternate independent basis for jurisdiction.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A certificate of
appealability is DENIED. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction, no ruling is made on
Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2).
SO ORDERED on this 1st day of July, 2020.

Mark T. Pittman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3