Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Adams v. Allen

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

December 15, 2016

TYRICE C. ADAMS, PETITIONER
v.
DANNY ALLEN, RESPONDENT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge United States District Court.

         Petitioner Tyrice C. Adams filed a petition on a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 form. The Court must undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.[1] If so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Id.; see Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (holding a district court has the duty to “screen out” petitions that lack merit on their face). After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the Court concludes that the petition must be dismissed because its claims are premature or are not cognizable in this action.

         ALLEGATIONS

         Petitioner is incarcerated at the Hardin County Detention Center. The petition refers to pretrial detention as well as a conviction in a state-court criminal court case, No. 15-CR-00625. Petitioner also states, “I'm being retaliated against for filing a lawsuit against this institution, their taking 50% of my funds that's being sent to me by poverished family members. I'm being maliciously-indirectly oppressed by the Fraternal Order.” He further states that it is cold in the “cells, they take our blankets and sheets at 7-7:30 am and don't return them until 11-11:30 pm. We get one phone call on the weekends limiting our communication to the outside.”

         In his first ground for relief, Petitioner refers to a civil action in this Court, No. 3:16-CV-92-CRS, and a state-court criminal court case, No. 15-CR-00625. He cites to several Kentucky statutes and rules having to do with burden of proof and discovery. He discusses a missing emergency room report and an impounded car. He also refers to “exculpatory evidence . . . that was not presented into evidence on the behalf and ineffectiveness of my [public defender].”

         In ground two, Plaintiff asserts that he is “eligible” for the courts to “uphold ground (2) on my behalf in Civil Action #'s 3:16-CV-90-CRS and 3:16-CV-00029-CRS[.]”

         In ground three, Plaintiff states “K.R.S. 505.020 Prosecution for multiple offenses . . . in case #15-cr-00625.” He further states that the “commission was a single cause of conduct that was uninterrupted and did not consist of an intent to commit the offense included.”

         His request for relief states:

Case #15-CR-00625 Hardin County Subpoena the trial motions and all court appearances in case #15-cr-00625, the 19 officers that were present for that day as stated by supervising officer, subpoena all dash and body cameras from every district and/or division present that night as stated by officers on the stand. Release from custody or to the home incarceration program in Jefferson County with job search and work release so I can provide for my family. I also want the evidence in case #15-cr-00625 thoroughly inspected with a second opinion if necessary (the automobile at Gold City towing lot). I fear the accelerator got stuck presiding with other mechanical issues in the occurrence of the alleged commission before impact. It was never my intention to flee and evade police. Grant monetary relief in both civil action #'s 3:16-CV-00090-CRS and 3:16-CV-0020-CRS for punitive damages asked for in both civil actions.

         ANALYSIS

         As explained below, none of the claims the petition raises -- (1) conditions of confinement in prison, (2) two federal civil-rights actions previously brought in this Court, and (3) a state-court criminal case which is now on direct appeal -- is appropriate to bring in a § 2241 petition. Additionally, although it is not clear what, if any, claims he is making regarding pending charges against him, any such claims would be premature.

         Civil-rights claims

Petitioner's claims about retaliation and his living conditions in prison do not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, and, therefore, he must pursue them as civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Where, as here, a prisoner asserts conditions-of-confinement claims in a habeas corpus petition under § 2241, the appropriate course is to dismiss the petition to allow the prisoner to assert his claims in a civil-rights action. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714-15 (6th Cir. 2004).

         Previously filed civil-rights ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.