Opinion
Case No. 4:18cv552-RH-CJK
12-04-2018
SIDNEY MARTS, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). The matter is referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(B). The undersigned concludes that this action should be summarily dismissed because petitioner's claim is cognizable only under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) currently confined at Taylor Correctional Institution. Petitioner alleges the Florida courts "fraudulent[ly]" enjoined him from filing any pleadings or other requests for relief related to his underlying criminal case unless the filing is signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-2 (identifying Marts v. Jones, Case No. SC18-1163 (Fla. 2018), as the Florida Supreme Court case where sanction was imposed)). Petitioner claims the FDC is denying him access to the courts because it has a policy of instituting disciplinary procedures against inmates who are found by a court to be abusive litigants. (Doc. 1, pp. 2-3); see also Fla. Stat. § 944.279(1) (providing for the institution of prison disciplinary procedures, pursuant to FDC rules, against a prisoner who is found by a court to have filed frivolous or malicious actions). Petitioner concedes that his claim challenges the conditions of his confinement, but nonetheless argues federal habeas relief is available "[b]ecause the court order from Florida Supreme Court, and prison discipline[a]ry sanctions implies a detrimental impact on execution of sentence, which customary [sic] prohibits any attack on legality of sentence itself through state court, or 28 U.S.C. § 2254." (Doc. 1, pp. 2-3). As relief, plaintiff seeks an order requiring the respondent "to show cause forthwith." (Id., p. 3).
DISCUSSION
The habeas statute authorizes summary dismissal of a petition if "it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. "An inmate convicted and sentenced under state law may seek federal relief under two primary avenues: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Hutcherson v. Riley, 468 F.3d 750, 754 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973); requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action." Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004); Hutcherson at 754. "[T]hese avenues are mutually exclusive: if a claim can be raised in a federal habeas petition, that same claim cannot be raised in a separate § 1983 civil rights action." Hutcherson at 754 (emphasis added). "The converse is equally true, and the district court should dismiss a habeas petition raising a claim available under § 1983." Kerlin v. Barnard, No. 18-11221, — F. App'x —, 2018 WL 5881821, at *1 (11th Cir. Nov. 9, 2018); see also McNabb v. Comm'r Ala. Dep't of Corr., 727 F.3d 1334, 1344 (11th Cir. 2013) (dismissing death-sentenced prisoner's habeas claim challenging the method of his execution, because the claim was not an attack on the validity of his conviction or sentence but instead a challenge to a circumstance of his confinement; rejecting prisoner's argument that the claim was cognizable on habeas review because it challenged the execution of his sentence).
Although petitioner filed this action as a habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, his claim - that he is being denied access to the courts - relates to the conditions of his confinement, not the validity of his underlying criminal conviction or sentence, and is cognizable under § 1983. See Martin v. Wainwright, 526 F.2d 938, 939 (5th Cir. 1976) (holding that a claim alleging a denial of access to courts is cognizable under § 1983). Success by petitioner on his claim would not necessarily affect his release. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed. See, e.g., Kerlin, supra (affirming dismissal of § 2241 habeas petition brought by state inmate claiming state officials unconstitutionally refused to consider whether he was eligible for parole; inmate's parole claim could be asserted under § 1983, and, therefore, could not be brought in a habeas petition). If petitioner wishes to pursue his access to courts claim, he must file a § 1983 action.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
1. That this action be DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. That the clerk be directed to close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida this 4th day of December, 2018.
/s/ _________
CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within 14 days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.