Butler v. Lumpkin

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Texas
DecidedJanuary 15, 2025
Docket4:24-cv-03195
StatusUnknown

This text of Butler v. Lumpkin (Butler v. Lumpkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Butler v. Lumpkin, (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Opinion

Souther District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT wena □□ FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION NORTHINGTON BUTLER, § TDCJ #01572952 § Petitioner, : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. H-24-3195 BOBBY LUMPKIN, : Respondent. ; MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Northington Butler, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ), initiated this civil action by filling out and filing a form Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket Entry No. 1). After reviewing this document as required under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the court concludes that this action must be dismissed. The reasons are explained below. Background In 2009, Butler was sentenced to 35 years in TDCJ based on three Texas state court convictions for aggravated robbery. See Inmate Info. Search, Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., https://inmate.tdcj.texas.gov/InmateSearch/start (last visited Dec. 16, 2024). Butler’s habeas petition does not challenge his conviction or sentence, and he does not seek relief from a prison disciplinary conviction or a parole decision. Instead, Butler challenges his confinement in administrative segregation under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (See Docket Entry No. \ at 6; Docket Entry No. I-1 at 1-3). He alleges that he has been confined in administrative segregation for over 3,000 days. (Docket Entry No. 1-1 at 1). He seeks release

from administrative segregation and transfer to a different prison unit. (See Docket Entry No. | at 7). I. Discussion Butler’s petition challenges his confinement in administrative segregation. The court must decide whether the claim Butler asserts is a civil-rights claim or a claim that sound in habeas. The “core issue in determining whether a prisoner must pursue habeas corpus relief rather than a civil rights action is to determine whether the prisoner challenges the ‘fact or duration’ of his confinement or merely challenges the rules, customs, and procedures affecting ‘conditions’ of confinement.” Cook v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Just. Transitional Plan. Dep’t, 37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Spina v. Aaron, 821 F.2d 1126, 1128 (Sth Cir. 1987)). If a favorable determination would not entitle the prisoner to an earlier release from confinement, then the complaint is construed as one for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31 (Sth Cir. 1995). Butler’s federal petition does not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, and a favorable determination of the claim would not entitle Butler to an earlier release date. The claim is properly construed as challenging his conditions of confinement. See Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 821 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that inmate’s claim challenging his confinement in administrative segregation was properly characterized as a § 1983 suit). . Claims challenging an inmate’s conditions of confinement must be brought in a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235, 243 (Sth Cir. 2017). Civil-rights claims are not actionable in federal habeas proceedings. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Poree, 866 F.3d at 243 (explaining that “challenges to the fact or

duration of confinement are properly brought under habeas, while challenges to the conditions of confinement are properly brought under § 1983”). The Fifth Circuit has advised that if a prisoner has filed a civil-rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that contains both habeas and civil rights claims under § 1983, the district court should separate the claims and decide the § 1983 claims. See Orellana, 65 F.3d at 31 (citing Serio v. Members of La. State Bd. of Pardons, 821 F.2d 1112, 1119 (5th Cir. 1987)). It is not appropriate, however, to consider civil-rights claims in a habeas proceeding because of requirements posed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Unlike habeas proceedings, the PLRA requires prisoners asserting civil-rights claims under § 1983 to pay the filing fee for a civil action even if the prisoner receives leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Additionally, a court is required by the PLRA to review the pleadings and dismiss an action if it (i) is frivolous or malicious; (11) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (setting forth the same grounds). A prisoner who incurs three dismissals or “strikes” loses his eligibility to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and may be barred from filing suits unless he can show that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

_ | The filing fee for a federal habeas proceeding is $5.00 and the fee for a civil action is $350.00, plus a $55.00 administrative fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)-(b); Schedule of Fees, United States District & Bankruptcy Court Southern District of Texas (last updated Dec. 1, 2023), https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/page/FeeSchedule. If a prisoner qualifies for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and the $55.00 administrative fee is waived, the prisoner must still pay the $350.00 filing fee by installment from his inmate trust fund account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).

Because Butler has not raised any habeas claims in the § 2254 petition, the court dismisses the petition, without prejudice. If Butler wishes to pursue claims challenging his alleged wrongful confinement in administrative segregation, he must file a separate civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, subject to PLRA requirements. Butler may use the enclosed form complaint. If Butler wishes to pursue any civil-rights claims, the complaint must be filed in a United States District Court that has jurisdiction over the claims asserted in the complaint. Til. Conclusion and Order The court orders as follows: 1. Any pending motions are denied as moot. 2. A certificate of appealability is denied. 3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Butler v. Lumpkin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-lumpkin-txsd-2025.