Opinion
24-3030-JWL
06-24-2024
RANDY J. DeLaCRUZ, Petitioner, v. KEVIN PAYNE, Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HON. JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Randy J. DeLaCruz, a prisoner at the United States Disciplinary Barracks in Leavenworth, Kansas, has filed pro se a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, by which he challenges the military's custody of him after alleged parole violations. Respondent's answer to the petition is presently due on July 11, 2024. Petitioner has now filed a request to include certain “amendments” as a part of his petition, which the Court construes as a motion to amend the petition (Doc. # 12). The Court denies the motion.
In his motion, petitioner accuses the military of various misconduct, including lying, coercion, forgery, and bribery; he states that he wishes to “press charges;” and he states that seeks as a remedy that the military “pay” for violating his constitutional rights. He then lists the requested amendments, each of which consists of the name of a person and an accusation of misconduct. Thus, it appears that petitioner wishes by these amendments to assert various claims against a total of three persons. There is no basis for the assertion of such claims against such individuals by means of a habeas petition under Section 2241, however. Rather, this action under Section 2241 only concerns petitioner's claim that he is being imprisoned improperly, either because he challenges his conviction or sentence or because his sentence is not being calculated properly. Any claim against a particular actor for an alleged offense against petition could only be asserted in a separate civil rights suit, not in this habeas action. Accordingly, the Court denies petitioner's request to add the proposed amendments to the petition.
Of course, any such facts as alleged by petitioner could be used by petitioner as evidence to support his habeas claim that he is being improperly imprisoned; those facts may not support claims against individuals in this habeas action, however.
IT IS THEREFFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT petitioner's motion to amend the petition (Doc. # 12) is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.