Jimenez v. Wilson

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER: Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief as to his first claim and dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to his second claim. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 1/6/2021) (bdb)

Case 4:20-cv-01367-P Document 6 Filed 01/06/21

Page 1 of 3 PageID 36

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
RAMON L. JIMENEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC D. WILSON, Warden,
FMC-Fort Worth,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-1367-P

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and
supporting brief filed by Petitioner, Ramon L. Jimenez, against Eric D. Wilson, warden of
FMC-Fort Worth, Respondent. After having considered the petition and relief sought by
Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be summarily dismissed for
failure to state a claim in part and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in part.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner asserts that he is confined as a “parole violater,” having accepted “a plea
offer of 8 months or less.” Pet. 1, ECF No. 1.1 In this petition, he claims that he was not given
copies of documents pertaining to his appeal rights following the parole revocation
proceedings and that he is currently being forced to endure unconstitutional conditions of
confinement at FMC-Fort Worth, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, most notably that
he continues to be confined in an administrative segregation unit; that he has been denied
access to the telephone and law library; that there is no seat or table in his cell to eat his
1

The pagination in the ECF header is used.

Case 4:20-cv-01367-P Document 6 Filed 01/06/21

Page 2 of 3 PageID 37

meals on; that there is only one fingernail clipper for 80 to 100 inmates; and that he has had
no hair cut. Pet’r’s Br. 1-9, ECF No. 2.
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.2
Therefore, no service has issued upon Respondent.
As to Petitioner’s first claim, Petitioner fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim
for deprivation of a constitutional right. In an apparent attempt to implicate a due-process
claim, Petitioner asserts the following (all spelling, grammatical, and/or punctuation errors
are in the original):
On or around 10-21-2020 I was afforded a preliminary hearing, the hearing
officer offerd 8 months or less I accepted the plea offered and I have not heard
from them since.
After 5 days from the parole hearing, I decided to want appeal the plea offer
and go with the full revocation hearing and provide them with medical recrds
of my wife’s condition on cancer in the hope that they will consider releasing
me sooner. However, Ms. Smith case management COO. clearly deprived me
of all my appeal rights when she clearly ignored the hearing officer when he
made a clear statment to her: All those copies are for him to keep in case he
decides to appeal later on.

2

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

Case 4:20-cv-01367-P Document 6 Filed 01/06/21

Page 3 of 3 PageID 38

Pet’r’s Br. 3-4, ECF No. 2. According to Petitioner, he was never given the copies, thereby
depriving him of his right to appeal. Id. at 4-6. However, Petitioner fails to allege sufficient
facts to establish a claim for relief. Therefore, without more information, the Court will not
consider the claim at this time.
As to Petitioner’s second claim, a civil-rights complaint, not a § 2241 habeas petition,
is the proper procedural vehicle for challenging unconstitutional conditions of a prisoner’s
confinement. Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 1997); Cook v. Texas Dep’t of
Criminal Justice Transitional Planning Dep’t, 37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1994). Therefore,
Petitioner’s conditions-of-confinement claims should be brought in a civil-rights action.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief
as to his first claim and dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to
his second claim. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this 6th day of January, 2021.

Mark T. Pittman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3