Kimberly v. Payne
4:24-cv-00590
| E.D. Ark. | Nov 4, 2024Background
- Annastasia Nicole Kimberly (also known as Arron Michael Lewis) filed a petition purportedly under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
- The petition did not challenge the validity of the conviction or the length of the detention, but sought orders for record changes related to name and gender and a transfer to a female prison.
- The Court previously notified petitioner that such claims are not cognizable under § 2241 and offered conversion to a civil rights case, which petitioner declined.
- Petitioner requested in an amended petition release from incarceration, arguing that new identity precludes enforcement of the prior sentence.
- The Court construed the amended filings and determined whether any claims properly fit within habeas corpus jurisdiction or should be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether name/gender record change claims are cognizable under § 2241 | Kimberly requests orders for the BOP and State of Arkansas to update records and address petitioner by legal name | Not directly stated (state did not respond on merits) | Not cognizable under § 2241; dismissed |
| Whether transfer to female facility is properly a habeas claim | Kimberly seeks an order transferring to a female prison | Not directly stated | Not cognizable under § 2241; dismissed |
| Whether new legal identity bars the original life sentence | Kimberly argues petitioner, as new person, can't serve sentence given to Arron Michael Lewis | Not directly stated | Frivolous and meritless; dismissed |
| Whether case should be converted to a civil rights action | Court offered conversion; Kimberly declined | Not directly stated | Not converted; claims outside § 2241 dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir. 1996) (petitions seeking relief unrelated to conviction or detention length are not habeas petitions)
- Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467 (8th Cir. 2014) (clarifying civil rights vs. habeas corpus distinctions)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (standard for claims dismissed as frivolous)
- Haugen v. Sutherlin, 804 F.2d 490 (8th Cir. 1986) (complaints that are facially frivolous may be dismissed)