United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENYING
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AS MOOT, DENYING A
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN
DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Courtney Partin, an inmate currently confined in a Tennessee
state prison, has filed a pro se habeas corpus
petition and a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos.
1, 3.) The petition is before the Court for initial review.
does not specify whether he brings his petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2441 or § 2254. Regardless, Petitioner
does not state a claim for habeas relief under either
statute, and thus the petition must be dismissed.
The inmate alleges that, while on lockdown for search by the
[S]trike [F]orce [O]ne with [Warden] Michael W. Parris
present[, ] Strike Force One used excessive force and
assaulted the Petitioner . . . . The Petitioner was placed in
segregation for 21 days without a conviction or due process.
The Petitioner . . . was denied medical treatment form [sic]
then up until now. The petitioner is still in pain suffering
and needing medical treatment for the damage done to his
body, as well the petitioner is in fear for his safety.
(ECF No. 1 at 1-2.)
further avers that he “filed a civil rights complaint
on 6-24-16” in this judicial district regarding these
events. (Id. at 2.) That case is currently pending.
(See Partin v. Unknown Named Defendants, 16-cv-01178
a prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his
physical imprisonment and the relief that he seeks is a
determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a
speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal
remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus.”
Theriot v. Shane Place, No. 2:17-cv-53, 2017 WL
1905870, at *1 (W.D. Mich. May 10, 2017) (citing Preiser
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973)). “However,
habeas corpus is not available to prisoners who are
complaining only of the conditions of their confinement or
mistreatment during their legal incarceration.”
Id. (citing Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d
710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004)). The inmate here complains only
about his alleged mistreatment and the conditions of his
confinement. He therefore does not state a claim for habeas
proper vehicle for Partin's claims is 42 U.S.C. §
1983. See Luedtke v. Berkebile, 704 F.3d 465, 466
(6th Cir. 2013) (conditions of confinement claims must be
brought, if at all, under § 1983 or Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971)); see also Taylor v. Ives, Civil No.
11-256-GFVT, 2012 WL 6506995, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 12, 2012)
(inmate's challenge to “security
classification” is a claim regarding conditions of
confinement “which [could] only be asserted in a civil
rights action . . .”); Evans v. Eichenlaub,
No. 08-13469, 2008 WL 4771934, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 29,
2008) (inmate's allegation that prison did not provide
him with adequate medical care challenged his conditions of
confinement and therefore was not cognizable in habeas
proceeding). As noted, Partin filed his claims under §
1983 in an earlier suit, which remains pending.
the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. See
Martin, 391 F.3d at 714 (the proper course is to deny
the mislabeled habeas petition).
motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot.
Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.
habeas corpus petitioner may not proceed on appeal unless a
district or circuit judge issues a certificate of
appealability (“COA”). 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). A certificate must
issue if the petitioner demonstrates that “reasonable
jurists would find the district court's assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “A petitioner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that . . . jurists
could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
Court, having considered Petitioner's claims, finds that
reasonable jurists could not conclude that dismissal of the
petition for the reasons stated was ...