From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lockhart v. Allen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 26, 2017
Case No.: 17cv1011 BEN (KSC) (S.D. Cal. May. 26, 2017)

Opinion

Case No.: 17cv1011 BEN (KSC)

05-26-2017

BOBBY SHAWN LOCKHART, Petitioner, v. ALLEN, Grievance Coodinator, et al., Respondents.


ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; and (2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court will file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents. Petitioner lists various problems he claims he is facing in custody. Specifically, Petitioner claims: his access to courts has been interfered with, his Freedom of Information Act rights are being violated, and he has been denied medical care. (Pet. at 1-7, ECF No. 1.) Petitioner's claims are not cognizable on habeas review. Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2241; challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973), or pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the "federal analogue" to § 1983. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254, 255 n.2 (2006). A Bivens action is the proper remedy for a federal prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody. See Prieser, 411 U.S. at 499; Bivens, 403 U.S. 388. It appears that Petitioner challenges the conditions of his prison life, but not the fact or length of his custody. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2241.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court will file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. Further, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a Pro Se Prisoner Packet together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 5/26/2017

/s/_________

Roger T. Benitez

United States District Court


Summaries of

Lockhart v. Allen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 26, 2017
Case No.: 17cv1011 BEN (KSC) (S.D. Cal. May. 26, 2017)
Case details for

Lockhart v. Allen

Case Details

Full title:BOBBY SHAWN LOCKHART, Petitioner, v. ALLEN, Grievance Coodinator, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 26, 2017

Citations

Case No.: 17cv1011 BEN (KSC) (S.D. Cal. May. 26, 2017)