Sevelis v. Unknown Party

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided July 22, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-00951·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 8 9 Timothy Scott Sevelis, No. CV 21-00951-PHX-JAT (MTM) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Unknown Party, et al., 13 Respondents.

14 15 On June 1, 2021, Petitioner Timothy Scott Sevelis, who is confined in the Central 16 Arizona Florence Correctional Complex (CAFCC), filed a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 17 § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody. Petitioner did not pay 18 the $5.00 filing fee or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a June 10, 2021 19 Order, the Court dismissed the Petition because it was not filed on the court-approved form 20 and gave Petitioner 30 days to pay the filing fee or file an Application to Proceed and to 21 file an amended petition using the court-approved form included with the Order. 22 On June 14, 2021, Petitioner filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and 23 a letter. In a June 27, 2021 Order, the Court denied the letter and the deficient Application 24 to Proceed and gave Petitioner 30 days to pay the filing fee or file an Application to Proceed 25 In Forma Pauperis (Habeas). 26 On June 21, 2021, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition (Doc. 8), and on July 12, 27 2021, he paid the filing fee. The Court will dismiss the Amended Petition with leave to 28 amend. 1 I. Amended Petition 2 In his Amended Petition, Petitioner names Warden K. Kline as Respondent. 3 Petitioner asserts claims regarding his conditions of confinement. Specifically, Petitioner 4 contends his First Amendment right to freedom of speech was violated when Daniel 5 Beckwith of Dismas Charities, Inc.1 “commandeered” two of Petitioner’s letters that were 6 in the postal outbox, opened them, and read them; his First Amendment right to free 7 exercise of his religion has been violated “multpl[e] times” because he has asked to attend 8 Roman Catholic Church services, apparently outside of the prison, but has been denied 9 permission; his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by seizure of his “authorized” 10 phone, property, and “bodily self” and his detention by the U.S. Marshal’s Service at 11 CAFCC since April 2, 2021; and some unnamed individual committed the federal offense 12 of mail tampering and misuse of government funds, and the criminal charges have been 13 “turned over for prosecution.”2 14 Claims concerning conditions of confinement and violations of constitutional rights 15 during detention are not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding; rather, Petitioner must 16 seek relief for such claims in a civil rights proceeding. See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 17 749, 750 (2004) (citation omitted); see also Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) 18 (“constitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement, 19 whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive relief, fall outside [the] core [of habeas 20 relief]”); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 21 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)) (a civil rights action is the proper method to challenge conditions of 22 confinement). The Court will therefore dismiss the Amended Petition with leave to amend. 23 The Court notes that Petitioner appears to be attempting in part to challenge events 24

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

Sevelis v. Unknown Party, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Sevelis v. Unknown Party (Sevelis v. Unknown Party) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hewitt v. Helms
459 U.S. 460 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson
490 U.S. 454 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Mitchell v. Esparza
540 U.S. 12 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Nelson v. Campbell
541 U.S. 637 (Supreme Court, 2004)
John Badea v. Harvey Cox
931 F.2d 573 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Moore v. Ingram & Associates, Inc.
805 F. Supp. 7 (D. South Carolina, 1992)