Chanthanounsy v. Ins, Civil No. 01-124-P-C (D. Me. 6/5/2001), Civil No. 01-124-P-C.

• Decision Date: 05 June 2001
• Docket Number: Civil No. 01-124-P-C.
• Parties: KHAMPHANH CHANTHANOUNSY Plaintiff, v. INS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

Page 1

KHAMPHANH CHANTHANOUNSY Plaintiff, v. INS, Defendant.

Civil No. 01-124-P-C.

United States District Court, D. Maine.

June 5, 2001.

RECOMMENDED DECISION

MARGARET J. KRAVCHUK, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, an INS detainee, initiated this action on May 2, 2001, by filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a pleading captioned "Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus." Upon review of the pleading I determined that plaintiff's complaints related to the conditions of his confinement at the Cumberland County Jail¹ and that in truth he apparently wanted to bring a complaint alleging that unknown actors, both federal and state, had violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff did not challenge the legal basis of his detention, but suggested that he was subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" because of the lack of adequate medical care.

I gave Plaintiff the opportunity to convert this action into a civil complaint for violation of his civil rights (Docket No. 3). He was granted until May 31, 2001 to file an amended complaint clarifying his claims. Plaintiff has not responded to my prior order. I therefore construe his complaint as a petition for habeas corpus relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

The document before the court does not comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2242 in that it does not "allege the facts concerning the applicant's commitment or detention, the name of the person who has custody over him and by virtue of what claim or authority, if known." Furthermore, I can find no basis in the application upon which the district court could grant habeas relief even if the application were in the proper form. He states no legal basis to challenge the fact of confinement and complains in only the most general terms about the quality of medical care.² Petitioner asks that he be transferred back to Vermont rather than held in Maine. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1) Congress has placed the responsibility of determining where aliens are to be detained within the sound discretion of the Attorney General. This court has no jurisdiction to review that discretionary decision made by the Attorney General. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Avramenkov v. I.N.S., 99 F. Supp.2d 210, 213 (D.Conn. 2000).

Conclusion

I hereby order that the petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be GRANTED and recommend that the application for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice.

1. Plaintiff's primary complaint relates to the medical care and treatment he has received. He accuses jail personnel, medical staff, and INS officials of deliberately ignoring his repeated requests for medical assistance. Such conduct, if properly alleged with supporting nonconclusory facts, can amount to a constitutional deprivation. The claim rises to the level of a constitutional violation only if defendants exhibited "`deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.'" Watson v. Caton, 984 F.2d 537, 540 (1st Cir. 1993) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). "The courts have consistently refused to create constitutional claims out of disagreements between prisoners and doctors about the proper course of a prisoner's medical treatment, or to conclude that...