United Statesv.Terrill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISIONAug 16, 2013
CASE NO.5:13-CR-027 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2013)

CASE NO.5:13-CR-027

08-16-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, v. LORI A. TERRILL, DEFENDANT.


OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon defendant Lori A. Terrill's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, styled motion for relief under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 39). Plaintiff, United States of America, has filed a response in opposition. (Doc. No. 40). For the reasons that follow, the defendant's petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Defendant has requested relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that she has been refused medical treatment even after writing a letter to the prison warden, the BOP Regional Director, this Court, and the government. Purportedly attached as Exhibit A, the letter was not attached to defendant's motion.

Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus petitions. Muhammed v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004). In her motion for relief, defendant cites United States v. Peterman for the proposition that a § 2241 habeas petition is "appropriate for claims challenging the execution or manner in which the sentence is served." 249 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir. 2001). Defendant is not challenging the execution of her sentence; rather, she is alleging denial of medical treatment, a condition of her confinement. Execution of a sentence includes, among other claims, computation of good time credits, Sullivan v. United States, 90 Fed. App'x 862, 863 (6th Cir. 2004), avoiding participation in an Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, United States v. Coleman, 229 F.3d 1154, 1154 (6th Cir. 2000) (unpublished table decision), and parole decisions. Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d 442, 445-46 (6th Cir. 2009). Any of the above would serve as the basis for a proper § 2241 petition. In contrast, § 2241 "is not the proper vehicle for a prisoner to challenge conditions of confinement." Luedtke v. Berkebile, 704 F.3d 465, 466 (6th Cir. 2013).

When a prisoner is proceeding pro se, courts have repeatedly ruled that mischaracterizing a conditions of confinement complaint as a §2241 habeas petition does not bar the prisoner from properly refilling the claim. See Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004) (district court should have dismissed without prejudice pro se prisoner's § 2241 petition for transfer to another facility to receive medical treatment and allowed prisoner to file a § 1983 claim); Luedtke v. Berkebile, 704 F.3d 465, 466 (6th Cir. 2013) (district court properly dismissed pro se § 2241 petition without prejudice); Jessiah v. Holland, 2013 WL 460624 (E.D. Ky. 2013) (dismissing without prejudice pro se § 2241 petition challenging forfeiture of prison job and denial of telephone privileges).

While Ms. Terrill is represented by counsel, the Court dismisses her petition without prejudice, so that, if appropriate and she chooses to do so, she may properly refile it pursuant to the doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 16, 2013

/s/_________


HONORABLE SARA LIOI


UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE