White v. Cunningham (INMATE 2)

• Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
• Decided: April 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00625
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHN WHITE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:-24-CV-625-WKW ) [WO] DERRICK CUNNINGHAM, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Plaintiff John White’s action—filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief from solitary confinement—was reassigned to the undersigned on March 24, 2025. Upon careful review of the record, the court finds that the nature of the relief sought by Plaintiff is more appropriately addressed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as it involves the fact or duration of Plaintiff’s physical imprisonment in solitary confinement. In Krist v. Ricketts, 504 F.2d 887 (5th Cir. 1974), the former Fifth Circuit recognized that habeas corpus is generally available to prisoners “who seek release from solitary confinement within the context of general incarceration.” Id. at 887. Similarly, in Daker v. Warden, 805 F. App’x 648 (11th Cir. 2020), the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged the Supreme Court’s speculation in Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973), that a habeas corpus claim might be actionable where a prisoner claims that he has been subjected to additional unconstitutional restraints during otherwise lawful custody. Daker, 805 F. App’x at 650. The court further recognized that claims for release from administrative segregation may proceed as

habeas petitions. See id. (citing Krist, 504 F.2d at 887–88). Moreover, in Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049 (11th Cir. 2003), the Eleventh Circuit supported the treatment of a petition for release from administrative segregation as a habeas corpus

petition, citing Krist as precedent. Id. at 1053. Based on the foregoing legal precedents, Plaintiff’s action, originally filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, will be construed as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This construction is appropriate given Plaintiff’s request for relief from conditions that

affect the fact or duration of his solitary confinement. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's action is construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; (2) The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket to reflect this change in the nature of the action; (3) In the interests of justice, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc.

# 45) is GRANTED, and the Federal Defender is appointed to represent Plaintiff, see 28 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); (4) Counsel for Plaintiff shall file a notice of appearance on or before April

7, 2025; (5) Counsel shall consult with Plaintiff concerning the appointment on or before April 10, 2025;

(6) Counsel shall file a status report under seal on or before April 17, 2025, addressing Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement, mental health status, and hygiene, as well as any other pertinent current information;

(7) Counsel for Plaintiff is GRANTED until May 7, 2025, to amend the petition; (8) The Order entered on October 22, 2024 (Doc. # 8) granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is AMENDED to reflect that the $5 filing fee

is waived, see generally 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and the inmate account clerk at the facility where Plaintiff is incarcerated is DIRECTED not to collect a filing fee; (9) The parties are instructed henceforth to proceed in accordance with the

procedural rules applicable to habeas corpus petitions; and (10) Should Plaintiff wish to pursue a conditions-of-confinement claim, he may bring a separate action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that does not also challenge the fact of his confinement.

DONE this 2nd day of April, 2025. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE