United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOC. 1, 2, 3]
S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se Petitioner Larry Claggett filed the above-captioned
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 against the Warden of the Cuyahoga County
Corrections Center (“CCCC”), Eric
and Sheriff Clifford Pinkney. Claggett, a pretrial detainee,
claims that he brings this Petition as a class
action concerning the conditions of confinement
at the CCCC. For relief, he seeks 3 million dollars.
moves to proceed with this action in forma pauperis,
that motion is granted.
reasons that follow, this action is dismissed.
Petition and memorandum in support, Claggett does not
challenge the legality or duration of his confinement, but
the conditions of his confinement. He alleges that the food
service at CCCC is not sanitary, there is mold in the
showers, and that the physical facility is deteriorated. He
also claims that CCCC's administration is not responsive
to kites, inmate mail is tampered with, and inmate
conversations with counsel are recorded. Petitioner alleges
that prisoners do not receive proper medical care, and the
inmates suffer mental and physical abuse at the hands of CCCC
Court is required to award an application for a writ of
habeas corpus “unless it appears from the application
that the applicant or person detained is not entitled
thereto.”For any federal habeas petitioner,
“[t]he burden to show that he is in custody in
violation of the Constitution of the United States is on the
prisoner.” If the applicant is not entitled to
relief, the petition will be dismissed.
§ 2241, claims challenging the execution or manner in
which the applicant's sentence is served shall be filed
in the court having jurisdiction over the prisoner's
custodian. The Court has personal jurisdiction over
the Warden and Sheriff.
to the validity of any confinement or to particulars
affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus,
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct.
1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); requests for relief turning on
circumstances of confinement may be presented in a §
1983 action.” “[W]hen a state prisoner is
challenging the very fact or duration of his physical
imprisonment, and the relief 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 writ of
Petitioner seeks monetary relief related to the conditions of
his confinement and does not challenge the length or duration
of his imprisonment. Challenges to conditions of a
prisoner's confinement, not the fact or length of his
custody, are best addressed in a civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Petitioner has not asserted any claims
suggesting that he is entitled to habeas relief pursuant to
the foregoing reasons, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The Court certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), ...