Beltran v. Wolf, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-00152-C

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: SAM R. CUMMINGS, Senior United States District Judge
• Citation: 473 F.Supp.3d 688
• Parties: Jose Manuel Rodriguez BELTRAN, Petitioner, v. Chad F. WOLF, el al., Respondent.
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-00152-C
• Decision Date: 20 July 2020

473 F.Supp.3d 688

Jose Manuel Rodriguez BELTRAN, Petitioner,
v.
Chad F. WOLF, el al., Respondent.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-00152-C

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Abilene Division.

Signed July 20, 2020

473 F.Supp.3d 690

Elizabeth Luevano, Dunham & Jones PC, Dallas, TX, William Earl Clark, Jr., Dunham & Jones PC, Fort Worth, TX, for Petitioner.

ORDER

SAM R. CUMMINGS, Senior United States District Judge

Petitioner Jose Manuel Rodriguez Beltran, an immigrant detainee in the Bluebonnet Detention Center (BBDC) proceeding with the assistance of counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner asserts that the conditions of his confinement at BBDC are unconstitutionally dangerous because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. He alleges that his detention is unlawful because the unsafe conditions at BBDC resulted in his contracting COVID-19 in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Petitioner requests that the Court direct ICE to release him on bond "with appropriate precautionary public health measures."

Respondent has not filed an Answer; however, as explained below, the Court finds that the petition should be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A district court may summarily dismiss a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if it appears from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Wottlin v. Fleming , 136 F.3d 1032, 1034 (5th Cir. 1998) (affirming summary dismissal of Section 2241 petition); see also Rules 4 and 1(b) of the RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES.

I. HABEAS CORPUS

A petitioner may seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if he is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). Habeas only exists to "grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody and it cannot be used properly for any other purpose." Pierre v. United States , 525 F.2d 933, 935–36 (5th Cir. 1976). "Simply stated, habeas is not available to review questions unrelated to the cause of detention." Id. at 935. "The Fifth Circuit follows a bright-line rule: ‘If a favorable determination ... would not automatically entitle [the detainee] to accelerated release, ... the proper vehicle is a

473 F.Supp.3d 691

[civil rights] suit.’ " Sacal-Micha v. Longoria , 2020 WL 1518861, at *3 (S.D.Tex. Mar 27, 2020) (quoting Carson v. Johnson , 112 F.3d 818, 820–21 (5th Cir. 1997) ).

If a petitioner's allegations do not entitle him to accelerated release, they are not cognizable in a habeas action. Schipke v. Van Buren , 239 F. App'x 85, 86 (5th Cir. 2007). And even if a petitioner proves that his conditions of confinement amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, he is not entitled to release from an otherwise lawful imprisonment or detention. Cook v. Hanberry , 592 F.2d 248, 249 (5th Cir. 1979). Even unconstitutional conditions that create a risk of serious physical injury, illness, or death do not warrant release. Spencer v. Bragg , 310 F. App'x 678, 679 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Carson , 112 F.3d at 820–21 ). The proper relief from unconstitutional conditions of confinement would be to enjoin the unlawful practices that make the conditions intolerable. See Cook , 592 F.2d at 249.

A demand for release does not convert a conditions-of-confinement claim into a proper habeas request. See ...