Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:03-CV-798-Y
January 15, 2004
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In this action brought by petitioner Gary William Holt, construed as seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has made an independent review of the following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:
Holt's initial handwritten emergency petition included a request to be immediately released from administrative segregation. In the amended form petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241, however. Holt claimed that the administrative segregation was in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and rights to due process, and he expressly stated that he was not challenging the service of his sentence, but only challenging the condition of his confinement. Thus, although it appears this action could have been construed as a civil action subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), at this point in the proceeding, the Court will not reach that issue. See generally Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1997) (upholding order by district court construing state prisoner's habeas-corpus petition as a civil complaint and noting a `bright line rule' that if a favorable determination will not automatically entitle the prisoner to accelerated release, the case should be construed as a § 1983 civil suit); see also Boyce v. Ashcroft, 251 F.3d 911, 914("Prisoners who raise constitutional challenges to other prison decisions-including transfers to administrative segregation, exclusion from prison programs, or suspension of privileges, e.g., conditions of confinement, must proceed under section 1983 or Bivens" and not under habeas statute), judgment vacated as moot, 268 F.3d 953 (10th Cir. 2001).
1. The pleadings and record;
2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on December 22, 2003; and
3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on January 12, 2003.
The Court, after de novo review, finds and determines that Petitioner's objections must be overruled, that the Respondent's motion to dismiss should be granted, and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed with prejudice as moot and/or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions.
It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge should be, and are hereby, ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that Respondent's October 7, 2003, Motion to Dismiss [docket no. 10] be, and is hereby, GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be, and is hereby, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as moot.
In the alternative, the petition is dismissed with prejudice on the basis of failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.