Banks v. Greene

Full title: Frederick Banks, Petitioner v. Sheriff Jerry Greene, Respondent

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 25, 2018

Case No. 4:18-cv-0884 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 25, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 4:18-cv-0884

09-25-2018

Frederick Banks, Petitioner v. Sheriff Jerry Greene, Respondent

Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

Pro se Petitioner Frederick Banks, an inmate in the Mahoning County, Ohio Jail, filed the above-captioned Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner does not challenge his conviction or his sentence or the fact or length of his pretrial detention in his Habeas Petition. Instead, he contends: (1) a sheriff's deputy called him a derogatory name; (2) took him to another cell without his computer and legal materials needed to continue to file lawsuits; and (3) would not permit him to purchase books pertaining to the Wicca religion.

In general, habeas corpus is available to prisoners seeking relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004). Federal prisoners may use 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to attack the manner in which their sentence is being executed, such as the computation of sentence credits or parole eligibility. Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893 (6th Cir. 1991)); Wright v. United States Bd. of Parole, 557 F.2d 74, 77 (6th Cir. 1977). BUt Section 2241 is not available to review questions unrelated to the cause of detention. Martin, 391 F.3d at 714. Prisoners challenging the conditions of their confinement must do so through a civil rights action. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-88 (1973). Virtually every aspect of a prisoner's daily life that does not affect the duration of his confinement is considered a "condition of confinement."

Here, Petitioner is not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement. Rather, he is challenging general conditions in the jail. These claims are not the proper subjects of a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.¹

1 Banks is a well-established, multi-district, frequent filer, who has brought over 350 cases in the Northern District of Ohio, the District of Massachusetts, the Southern District of Mississippi, the District of Columbia, the Southern District of New York, the Western District of New York, the District of Colorado, the District of Arizona, the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of Florida, the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Middle and Western Districts of Pennsylvania, the Eastern District of Missouri, the Eastern District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Western District of Oklahoma, the District of Utah, and the District of Alaska. All of these cases were dismissed as frivolous. He has been declared to be subject to three strike provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) on numerous occasions. Undeterred, Banks utilizes § 2241 to circumvent the application of § 1915(g). --------

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Further, I certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.

So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick

United States District Judge