United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
P. MAZZONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3, 2019, the pro se petitioner, Felix Castro-Davis
(“Castro-Davis”) filed an Application for Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, together with a
Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and a
Prisoner Trust Account Report. This matter is assigned to the
Honorable John Preston Bailey, United States District Judge,
and is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge for submission of a proposed disposition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
petition, Castro-Davis alleges that on December 31, 2018, he
was injured in the FCI Gilmer kitchen and sent to Health
Services for emergency treatment where he was denied any
level of review for his injury. In addition, Castro-Davis
alleges that Health Services refuses to provide
“licensed medical assessment of [his] injuries and long
term/permanent physical damage from [his] December 31, 2018
work place injury. For relief, he asks for an Order directing
Health Services to admit their failure to treat or assess his
injury and to provide a licensed medical doctor to review his
injury and assess his permanent physical damage.
section 2241 petition is used to attack the manner in which
the sentence is executed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
More specifically, a section 2241 petition is appropriate
where a prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his
confinement but not the conditions of that confinement.
See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499-500
Castro-Davis complains about the conditions of his
confinement. Specifically, his claims relate to his medical
condition and what the undersigned construes as an allegation
of deliberate indifference to that condition. This claim is
not an attack on, nor is it related in any way to, the
execution of his sentence. Thus, Castro-Davis' claims
regarding the conditions of his confinement should have been
raised pursuant to a civil rights complaint. Preiser
at 499-500 (a civil rights action is the proper remedy for a
prisoner challenging the conditions of his prison life).
See also Lee v. Winston, 717 F.2d 888 (4th Cir.
1983). Because a petition for writ of habeas corpus under
§ 2241 is not the proper avenue in which to seek the
requested relief, the petition should be denied and dismissed
from the Court's active docket.
consideration of the foregoing, it is the undersigned's
recommendation that Castro Davis' § 2241 petition
[ECF No.1] be DENIED and DISMISSED without
prejudice to his right to file his claims in a civil rights
action. In addition, the undersigned recommends that his
Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] BE GRANTED, but the fee be waived.
shall have fourteen days from the date of service of this
Report and Recommendation within which to file with the Clerk
of this Court, specific written
objections, identifying the portions of the Report
and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis
of such objection. A copy of such objections should
also be submitted to the United States District Judge.
Objections shall not exceed ten (10) typewritten pages or
twenty (20) handwritten pages, including exhibits, unless
accompanied by a motion for leave to exceed the page
limitations, consistent with LR PL P 12.
to file written objections as set forth above shall
constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court
and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of
Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363
(4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985);
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.
Report and Recommendation completes the referral from the
district court. The Clerk is directed to terminate the