United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ANTHONY D. JONES, #193539, Petitioner,
SHERMAN CAMPBELL, Respondent.
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Michigan prisoner Anthony D. Jones, currently confined at the
Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan
asserts that he is not being given proper mental health care
while in prison in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
He seeks immediate release from prison and placement in an
adult foster care home or a community corrections center so
that he can receive better treatment.
after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court
must undertake a preliminary review of the petition to
determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of
the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases;
see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If, after
preliminary consideration, the Court determines that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court must
summarily dismiss the petition. Id., see also
Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970)
(district court has the duty to “screen out”
petitions that lack merit on their face). A federal district
court is authorized to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus
petition if it plainly appears from the face of the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to federal habeas relief. McFarland v. Scott, 512
U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434,
436 (6th Cir. 1999); Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254
undertaking the preliminary review required by Rule 4, the
Court concludes that the petition must be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A
petition for writ of habeas corpus provides the appropriate
vehicle for challenging the fact or duration of a
prisoner's confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 486-87 (1973). Petitioner is not challenging
the fact or duration of his confinement and he raises no
challenge to his criminal proceedings in his pleadings. He
instead complains about the lack of proper mental health care
while in state custody. Habeas corpus relief is not available
to prisoners who complain of such mistreatment. See Lutz
v. Hemingway, 476 F.Supp.2d 715, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2007)
(citing Cook v. Hanberry, 592 F.2d 248, 249 (5th
Cir. 1979)). Such complaints involving the alleged denial of
medical care “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.” Id.
(quoting Maddux v. Rose, 483 F.Supp. 661, 672 (E.D.
concerning the conditions of confinement are not cognizable
in a habeas action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
2254 or 2241. Alston v. Gluch, 921 F.2d 276, 1990 WL
208674 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 1990); see also Hodges v.
Bell, 170 Fed.Appx. 389, 393 (6th Cir. 2006);
Sullivan v. United States, 90 Fed.Appx. 862 (6th
Cir. 2004); Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 386-87
(7th Cir. 2005). Such claims by state prisoners or pre-trial
detainees are more properly brought in a civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Preiser, 411 U.S. at
484; Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004);
see also Stafford v. Romanowski, No. 16-12100, 2016
WL 3418546, *1 (E.D. Mich. June 22, 2016) (dismissing state
prisoner's § 2241 petition); Hernandez v.
Michigan MDOC, No. 2:13-CV-15271, 2014 WL 186033, *2
(E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2014) (dismissing state prisoner's
§ 2254 petition); Martin v. Zych, No.
2:09-10423, 2009 WL 398166, *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2009)
(dismissing federal prisoner petition). Because
Petitioner's allegations concern the alleged lack of
proper mental health care while in state custody and do not
concern the validity of his state criminal proceedings, he
fails to state a claim for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. His petition must be dismissed.
reasons stated, the Court concludes that Petitioner fails to
state a claim upon which federal habeas relief may be granted
in his petition. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES
WITH PREJUDICE the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. This dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of
a proper civil rights complaint in the appropriate court
following the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The
Court makes no determination as to the merits of such a
Petitioner may appeal this decision, a certificate of
appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of
appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a court
denies relief on the merits, the substantial showing
threshold is met if the petitioner demonstrates that
reasonable jurists would find the court's assessment of
the constitutional claim debatable or wrong. Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). When a court
denies relief on procedural grounds without addressing the
merits, a certificate of appealability should issue if it is
shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the petitioner states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find
it debatable whether the court was correct in its procedural
ruling. Id. Reasonable jurists would not find the
dismissal of this ...