Opinion
4:23-cv-01005-KGB
08-28-2024
MARK CHRISTIAN HENDERSON ADC #078763 PLAINTIFF v. DEXTER PAYNE DEFENDANT
KRISTINE G. BAKER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Findings and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris (Dkt. No. 9). Plaintiff Mark Christian Henderson has not filed any objections, and the time to file objections has passed. However, Mr. Henderson has filed a motion that this Court understands to be a motion to amend his petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 10). Additionally, Mr. Henderson's sister has filed a notice with the Court in coordination with Mr. Henderson (Dkt. No. 11).
While both the motion and notice contain matters related to Mr. Henderson's health and ability to access courts without interference, neither address the facts and reasoning of the Recommendation (Dkt. Nos. 10; 11). The Recommendation points out that Mr. Henderson has filed a previous habeas petition, Henderson v. Payne, No. 4:21-cv-00096-KGB, but has failed to obtain authorization to file his second or successive petition from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Dkt. No. 9, at 2-3). No amendment would fix this deficiency. Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Henderson's motion to amend his petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 10).
To the extent Mr. Henderson may be able to assert a claim against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding allegations of interference with his mail based upon his representations in correspondence to the Court, Mr. Henderson would be required to assert such a claim in a separate cause of action, not in this habeas corpus proceeding. See Davis v. Norris, 249 F.3d 800, 801 (8th Cir. 2001) (“Prisoners' First Amendment rights encompass the right to be free from certain interference with mail correspondence . . . .”); see also Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Interference with legal mail implicates a prison inmate's rights to access to the courts and free speech as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”).
After careful consideration, the Court approves and adopts the Recommendation in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 9). The Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Henderson's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1). The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
It is so ordered.