Jones v. LeMasters

E.D. Kentucky

Jones v. LeMasters

DecidedNovember 29, 2023

Docket0:23-cv-00112

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Jones v. LeMasters, (E.D. Ky. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT ASHLAND

CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-112-DLB

JEFFERY SCOTT JONES PETITIONER

v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DAVID LEMASTERS, WARDEN RESPONDENT

*** *** *** ***

Federal inmate Jeffery Jones has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. # 1). Jones indicates that prior to his incarceration he suffered a severe injury to his spine, but that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by refusing to provide him with an adequate mattress and appropriate pain treatment. Jones seeks an order to compel proper medical treatment and transfer to a prison that can provide more extensive medical care. See (Doc. # 1-1). The Court screens the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Pillow v. Burton, 852 F. App’x 986, 989 (6th Cir. 2021). The Court must deny the petition because Jones’s claims do not affect either the validity of his conviction or the duration of his sentence, but instead affect only the conditions of his confinement. They therefore may not be asserted in a habeas corpus proceeding. Muhammed v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus; requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.”); Sullivan v. United States, 90 F. App’x 862, 863 (6th Cir. 2004) (“§ 2241 is a vehicle not for challenging prison conditions, but for challenging matters concerning the execution of a sentence such as the computation of good-time credits.”). The Court will therefore deny the petition without prejudice to Jones's right to assert his claims in a civil rights proceeding. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) Jeffery Scott Jones’s petition (Doc. # 1) is DENIED. (2) This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket. This 29th day of November, 2023.

her Signed By: Ay David. Bunning “Gs” United States District Judge

LADATA\ORDERS\PSO Orders\Jones 0-23-112 Memorandum.docx

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT ASHLAND

CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-112-DLB

JEFFERY SCOTT JONES PETITIONER

v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DAVID LEMASTERS, WARDEN RESPONDENT

*** *** *** ***

Federal inmate Jeffery Jones has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. # 1). Jones indicates that prior to his incarceration he suffered a severe injury to his spine, but that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by refusing to provide him with an adequate mattress and appropriate pain treatment. Jones seeks an order to compel proper medical treatment and transfer to a prison that can provide more extensive medical care. See (Doc. # 1-1). The Court screens the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Pillow v. Burton, 852 F. App’x 986, 989 (6th Cir. 2021). The Court must deny the petition because Jones’s claims do not affect either the validity of his conviction or the duration of his sentence, but instead affect only the conditions of his confinement. They therefore may not be asserted in a habeas corpus proceeding. Muhammed v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus; requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.”); Sullivan v. United States, 90 F. App’x 862, 863 (6th Cir. 2004) (“§ 2241 is a vehicle not for challenging prison conditions, but for challenging matters concerning the execution of a sentence such as the computation of good-time credits.”). The Court will therefore deny the petition without prejudice to Jones's right to assert his claims in a civil rights proceeding. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) Jeffery Scott Jones’s petition (Doc. # 1) is DENIED. (2) This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket. This 29th day of November, 2023.

her Signed By: Ay David. Bunning “Gs” United States District Judge

LADATA\ORDERS\PSO Orders\Jones 0-23-112 Memorandum.docx

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jones v. LeMasters, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-lemasters-kyed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack