Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Claggett v. Ivey

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division

August 19, 2019

LARRY CLAGGETT, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN ERIC IVEY, et al., Respondents.

          OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOC. 1, 2, 3]

          JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pro 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 Ivey[1] and Sheriff Clifford Pinkney.[2] Claggett, a pretrial detainee, claims that he brings this Petition as a class action[3] concerning the conditions of confinement at the CCCC.[4] For relief, he seeks 3 million dollars.

         Claggett moves to proceed with this action in forma pauperis, [5] and that motion is granted.

         For the reasons that follow, this action is dismissed.

         A. Background

         In the 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 staff.[6]

         B. Law and Analysis

         The 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.”[7]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.”[8] If the applicant is not entitled to relief, the petition will be dismissed.[9]

         Under § 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.[10] The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Warden and Sheriff.

         “Challenges 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.”[11] “[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 habeas corpus.”[12]

         Here, 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.[13] Petitioner has not asserted any claims suggesting that he is entitled to habeas relief pursuant to § 2241.

         C. Conclusion

         For all 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), ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.