MATZ v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

Full title: JEFFREY A. MATZ, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; DENNIS LNU…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division

Date published: Aug 23, 2005

EP-05-CA-303-FM (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2005)

Opinion

EP-05-CA-303-FM.

August 23, 2005

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241

FRANK MONTALVO, District Judge

On this day, the Court considered Petitioner Jeffrey A. Matz' ("Petitioner") Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed in the above-captioned cause on August 4, 2005. Therein, he alleges that Respondents have violated his constitutional rights by denying him adequate medical care. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that Petitioner is attacking the conditions of his confinement. The Court further concludes that the Petition should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243,¹ because claims attacking the conditions of confinement are properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or as a Bivens action.²

1 Title 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides, in pertinent part, that:

A court, justice, or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.

28 U.S.C. § 2243 (West 2004) (emphasis added).

2 Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983") applies to deprivation of rights under the color of state law. See Evans v. Ball, 168 F.3d 856, 863 n. 10 (5^th Cir. 1999). "A Bivens action is analogous to an action under § 1983 — the only difference being that § 1983 applies to constitutional violations by state, rather than federal officials." Id. As the Respondent Petitioner names in his Petition is a federal official, acting under the color of federal law, Petitioner's claims are properly brought as a Bivens action, rather than a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognizing a right implied directly under the Constitution to recover damages against a federal official for violation of a constitutional right). For ease of reference, the Court will discuss the applicable law only in terms of § 1983.

"Generally, § 1983 suits are the proper vehicle to attack unconstitutional conditions of confinement and prison procedures." Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1997). In contrast, a habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is a vehicle with which to seek release from custody. See id. "If a favorable determination . . . would not automatically entitle [the prisoner] to accelerated release, the proper vehicle is a §§ 1983 suit." Id. at 821 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Here, because a favorable determination of Petitioner's claims would not automatically entitle him to an accelerated release, the proper vehicle for his claims is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. See id. at 820-21. Therefore, the Court concludes that Petitioner's instant section 2241 Petition should be dismissed.

Accordingly, after due consideration, the Court concludes that the following orders should enter:

1. Petitioner Jeffrey A. Matz' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed in the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division on August 4, 2005, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall provide Petitioner with the form appropriate form for filing a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983/ Bivens, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

3. All pending motions in this cause, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT.