Opinion
Case No. 02-10014-BC
November 20, 2002.
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Petitioner Anthony Pryor, a/k/a/ Michael Young, presently confined at the Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his application, filed pro se, the petitioner does not challenge any criminal conviction, but rather challenges various alleged conditions of his confinement at the Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility. Because such claims are not properly before the Court on a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the prisoner's pleading, construed as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, does not establish the exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice.
I.
In the request for habeas relief, the petitioner alleges that he is being subjected to unlawful treatment by prison officials at the Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility. Specifically, the petitioner alleges that he has been subjected to excessive force or unlawful assaults by prison guards on several occasions in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The petitioner also claims that prison officials have interfered with his incoming and outgoing mail in violation of the First Amendment. The petitioner appears to be requesting that this Court order his transfer to another prison facility. Although unclear, the petitioner may also be seeking a declaratory judgment from this Court which would find that prison officials had violated the petitioner's constitutional rights through the use of excessive force and the interference with the petitioner's mail.
II.
The writ of habeas corpus is the sole remedy for a prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his physical imprisonment. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). However, habeas corpus is not available to prisoners who complain only of mistreatment during their legal incarceration. Cook v. Hanberry, 592 F.2d 248, 249 (5th Cir. 1979). Such complaints "do not relate to the legality of the petitioner's confinement, nor do they relate to the legal sufficiency of the criminal court proceedings which resulted in the incarceration of the petitioner." Maddux v. Rose, 483 F. Supp. 661, 672 (E.D.Tenn. 1980). An inmate should therefore bring a claim challenging the conditions of confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Austin v. Bell, 927 F. Supp. 1058, 1066 (M.D.Tenn. 1996).
In the present case, the petitioner does not challenge the legality of his confinement, nor does he seek a speedier release from that confinement. The petitioner's excessive force claims are therefore not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Jackson v. Lacy, 74 F. Supp.2d 173, 181 (N.D.N.Y. 1999) (holding that a petitioner's claim that he was beaten by deputies at county jail while awaiting sentence did not state a claim upon which habeas relief could be granted). Likewise, the petitioner's claim that prison officials are interfering with his mail concerns the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Because the petitioner challenges only the conditions of his confinement, the remedies he seeks, to the extent they are available at all, can only be pursued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court is mindful of its obligation to liberally construe pro se pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Middleton v. McGinnis, 860 F. Supp. 391, 392 (E.D.Mich. 1994). Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider whether the prisoner has stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his civil rights concerning the conditions of his confinement. However, under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), before any prisoner may file a civil rights suit challenging prison conditions, he must exhaust all internal administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). A prisoner's failure to demonstrate exhaustion of internal remedies is grounds for automatic dismissal. See Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir. 1998). The internal administrative procedures must be followed even if they do not offer the precise relief that the prisoner seeks. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740-41 (2001). Dismissal without prejudice is required even if the time for filing the required grievance has expired. See Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 417 n. 3 (6th Cir. 1997). A prisoner cannot abandon the grievance process before completion and then claim to have exhausted administrative remedies. Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305, 309 (6th Cir. 1999).
To demonstrate exhaustion of his administrative remedies, the Sixth Circuit requires that an inmate attach to his complaint copies of his filed grievances as proof of exhaustion. Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104. Failure to provide this affirmative showing of exhaustion justifies dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint. See Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal of prisoner-plaintiff's claims for failure to attach proof of exhaustion to his complaint, even though it appeared that the prisoner had in fact exhausted his administrative remedies). Where the prisoner has failed to attach the proper grievance forms to his complaint, this Circuit requires the Court to dismiss the prisoner's complaint on its own initiative. Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104.
The pleading which the petitioner filed here did not include any evidence that he resorted to available administrative remedies. The Michigan Department of Corrections has a multi-step grievance process in place. Each step has a time limit that can be waived with good cause, including a transfer to a different facility. First, within two business days, the prisoner must attempt verbally to resolve the dispute with those involved. If that fails, the inmate then must submit a Step I grievance within five days. The prison staff is required to respond within fifteen days. If the inmate is dissatisfied with the response, he may request a Step II appeal form within five days, and then has five additional days to submit it. If an inmate is dissatisfied with the result at Step II, he has ten business days to appeal to Step III, which concludes the grievance process. See generally MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130.
Because the petitioner did not attach grievance forms to his complaint, the Court may not consider it as a civil rights complaint challenging prison conditions.
III.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus that does not forth facts giving rise to a cause of action under federal law shall be summarily dismissed. Perez v. Hemingway, 157 F. Supp.2d 790, 796 (E.D.Mich. 2001); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4. Likewise, summary dismissal of civil rights complaints challenging prison conditions are summarily dismissed when administrative remedies have not been exhausted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104. Because the instant petition states no cognizable claim, the Court will dismiss the petition.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.