(HC) Ogden v. Bureau of Prisons

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03386
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUSSELL OGDEN, No. 2:24-CV-3386-SCR 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 BUREAU OF PRISONS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a federal inmate proceeding without a lawyer in this habeas corpus action 18 filed pursuant to 28 U.S.S. § 2241. He has paid the filing fee for this action. 19 I. Factual and Procedural Background 20 According to the habeas application, petitioner sustained a torn bicep in February 2024. 21 Since that time, petitioner’s medical treatment for this injury has been delayed due to multiple 22 prison transfers. By way of relief, petitioner seeks “immediate attention to ongoing medical 23 issues resulting from a torn bicep injury….” ECF No. 1 at 1. Petitioner also requests that the 24 exhaustion of his administrative remedies be deemed futile, and thus excused. 25 II. Legal Standards 26 Habeas corpus relief is available if a federal prisoner can show that he is “in custody in 27 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 28 However, where a petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, his claims may 1 only be raised in a civil rights action rather than a habeas corpus action. Federal prisoners cannot 2 pursue relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which applies to state officials. However, federal prisoners 3 complaining of unconstitutional treatment or other injury may pursue damages against a federal 4 official in his or her individual capacity under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal 5 Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) or against the United States under the Federal Tort 6 Claims Act. Federal prisoners may also seek injunctive relief to compel compliance with the U.S. 7 Constitution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Administrative Procedure Act’s waiver of 8 sovereign immunity. See Roman v. Wolf, 977 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2020) (noting that § 1331 9 provides jurisdiction over claims for injunctive relief based on constitutional violations); Solida v. 10 McKelvey, 820 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that a plaintiff “seek[ing] equitable relief 11 against the federal government” may proceed under 5 U.S.C. § 702, which “waives sovereign 12 immunity for such claims”). 13 III. Analysis 14 Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which are equally 15 applicable to § 2241 petitions, the court must review all petitions for writ of habeas corpus and 16 summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.1 The court 17 has conducted that review and recommends summarily dismissing petitioner’s habeas corpus 18 application because petitioner is not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement. In this 19 case, petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement and the delays in receiving 20 medical care for his torn bicep. Put simply, the relief he seeks is not available in a § 2241 21 petition. Thus, the undersigned recommends summarily dismissing the § 2241 petition without 22 prejudice to refiling as a civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens. 23 Although this court has discretion to construe the habeas petition as a civil rights 24 complaint, the undersigned recommends declining to recharacterize the § 2241 petition as a civil 25 rights action. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (district courts have 26 discretion to construe a habeas petition attacking conditions of confinement as a complaint under 27 1 Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 allows a district 28 court to apply any or all of the rules to other types of habeas corpus petitions. 1 § 1983 despite deliberate choice by petitioner to proceed on habeas), superseded by statute on 2 other grounds as recognized in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). As a practical matter, 3 provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) complicate a court’s decision 4 to recharacterize a habeas petition as a civil rights complaint. See Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 5 1059, 1075-1076 (9th Cir. 2023) (recognizing that “this general principle—that habeas petitions 6 may be converted to civil-rights actions—predates the enactment of the PLRA, which 7 significantly impacted a court's ability to convert a habeas petition into a civil rights action”). 8 Due to the PLRA's filing fee requirements, its provisions requiring sua sponte screening of 9 complaints, and its limits on the number of actions a prisoner may be permitted to file in forma 10 pauperis, a prisoner should not be obligated to proceed with a civil rights action unless he or she 11 clearly expresses a desire to do so. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 & 1915A; Nettles v. Grounds, 830 12 F.3d at 936 (holding that “a district court may construe a petition for habeas corpus to plead a 13 cause of action under § 1983 after notifying and obtaining informed consent from the prisoner”). 14 For these reasons, it is recommended that the court decline to exercise its discretion to 15 recharacterize the § 2241 petition as a civil rights action. 16 IV. Plain Language Summary for Party Proceeding Without a Lawyer 17 Since petitioner is representing himself, the following information is meant to explain this 18 order in plain English. It is not intended as legal advice. 19 After reviewing the habeas petition, the undersigned has concluded that relief is not 20 available via a habeas corpus application. Your medical care claim may only be pursued by filing 21 a civil rights action. It is recommended that your habeas petition be dismissed without prejudice 22 to pursuing appropriate relief in a civil rights action. 23 If you disagree with these recommendations, you have 21 days to explain why they are 24 wrong. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 25 Recommendations.” The district judge assigned to your case will review the file and make the 26 final decision. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. As a one time courtesy to petitioner, the Clerk of Court shall update petitioner’s 1 | address of record to FCI Terminal Island, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 3007, San 2 || Pedro, CA 90733. 3 2. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign this matter to a district judge. 4 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 5 1. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed without 6 || prejudice to refiling as a civil rights action. 7 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to send petitioner the form complaint for filing a civil 8 | rights action in this district. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. Within twenty one days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. Any response to the 14 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 15 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 16 | appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Yst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 | DATED: June 18, 2025 18 mk SEAN C. RIORDAN 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28