From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yandal v. Holland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON
Jan 3, 2012
Civil No. 11-343-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Jan. 3, 2012)

Opinion

Civil No. 11-343-GFVT

01-03-2012

MICHAEL YANDAL, Petitioner, v. WARDEN HOLLAND, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

AND ORDER

Michael Yandal is an inmate incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Manchester, Kentucky. Yandal, proceeding without counsel, has petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [R. 1]

In his petition, Yandal alleges that prison staff have been opening his legal mail outside of his presence, a practice he asserts is contrary to applicable federal regulations. Yandal seeks compensatory damages for these past actions and an injunction to prevent this from happening in the future. [R. 1 at 8.]

Yandal must utilize a civil rights action, rather than a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, to pursue his claims. A § 2241 petition can be used to challenge the fact or duration of a prisoner's confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). But a challenge to the BOP's handling of mail is a quintessential "conditions of confinement" claim which must be asserted under the civil rights laws. Cf. Lutz v. Hemingway, 476 F. Supp. 2d 715, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2007) ("[A]ny claim by the petitioner that prison officials have interfered or are interfering with his mail is a civil rights claim that is not cognizable on habeas review.") (citing Thomas v. Keohane, 1989 WL 63334, at *2 (6th Cir. June 14, 1989)); Abuhouran v. Morrison, 46 F. App'x 349 (6th Cir. 2002); Somerville v. Dewalt, 2009 WL 649063, at *7 (ED. Ky. Mar. 11, 2009).

When a prisoner files a habeas petition asserting claims which must be raised in a civil rights action, the district court should deny the petition without prejudice to allow the prisoner to assert the claims under the proper method. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004); Richmond v. Scibana, 387 F.3d 602, 605-06 (7th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Brian L. Yandal's's petition for a writ of habeas corpus [R. 1] is DENIED.

2. The Court will enter an appropriate judgment.

Signed By:

Gregory F. Van Tatenhove

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Yandal v. Holland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON
Jan 3, 2012
Civil No. 11-343-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Jan. 3, 2012)
Case details for

Yandal v. Holland

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL YANDAL, Petitioner, v. WARDEN HOLLAND, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON

Date published: Jan 3, 2012

Citations

Civil No. 11-343-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Jan. 3, 2012)