Robinson v. Sherrod
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1571
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Robinson, a federal inmate, filed a habeas corpus action alleging prison medical staff ignored his back-pain complaints and sought an MRI and treatment.
- District court dismissed, holding habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge conditions of confinement under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
- Seventh Circuit in Glaus v. Anderson had allowed some challenges to conditions of confinement in habeas, but Bell and Preiser reserved the question noncommittally; Nelson v. Campbell was distinguishable.
- The court discussed alternatives: Bivens action or Administrative Procedure Act/FD claims, noting program statements and guidelines do not create enforceable entitlements.
- Bivens relief could be available for serious undiagnosed back pain, but Robinson failed to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
- Because Robinson did not exhaust remedies, Bivens suit was premature; district court dismissal was proper, and Robinson's appeal was deemed frivolous with three-strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May habeas relief address prison conditions? | Robinson contends habeas is appropriate for medical denial. | Court should not permit habeas challenges to conditions of confinement. | Habeas not proper route for conditions; relief addressed under other avenues. |
| Is Bivens available for medical-care claims when administrative remedies are unexhausted? | Bivens may provide equitable relief for deliberate medical neglect. | Exhaustion required and Bivens is unavailable absent exhaustion and appropriate context. | Bivens not available because exhaustion was not satisfied; remand not warranted. |
| Can the district court recharacterize a habeas petition as a civil rights complaint? | Recharacterization could provide a viable § 1983/APA remedy. | Recharacterization should not occur without informed consent; impractical and prejudicial. | Court cautioned against recharacterization absent informed consent. |
| Does the Administrative Procedure Act permit relief for medical treatment in this context? | APA could compel medical treatment from BOP. | Program Statements and guidelines do not create enforceable entitlements; APA relief unlikely here. | APA relief unavailable to compel back-pain diagnosis and treatment given the policy framework. |
| Does exhaustion bar future relief or permit a new action after dismissal without prejudice? | Dismissal should not foreclose relief if conditions worsen or change. | Exhaustion bars immediate relief; dismissal without prejudice allows refiling after exhaustion. | Dismissal without prejudice preserves possibility of later action after exhaustion; but three-strikes may apply if pursued in forma pauperis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2005) (conditions-of-confinement habeas considerations; district courts should consider available alternatives)
- Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (S. Ct. 2004) (refinement on limits of habeas for non-duration-related concerns)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (S. Ct. 1979) (reservation of question whether habeas can challenge conditions)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (S. Ct. 1973) (limits on habeas to restore freedom; not conditions-only)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (S. Ct. 1980) (FTCA not exclusive remedy for constitutional torts; Bivens remains available)
- Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2005) (repeated for emphasis on exhaustion and remedies)
- Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2005) (FTA not always exclusive remedy; context-specific)
- Williams v. Wisconsin, 336 F.3d 576 (7th Cir. 2003) (habeas limitations on prison-condition challenges)