2:22-cv-00047
E.D. Ark.May 20, 2022 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DELTA DIVISION
RANDAL JENNINGS,
Reg. #21384-045 PETITIONER
VS. NO. 2:22-CV-00047-JM-ERE
Dewayne Hendrix, former Warden,
Forrest City, et al. RESPONDENT
ORDER
On March 21, 2022, Randal Jennings, incarcerated in the Federal Correctiоnal
Institution Low Unit, in Forrest City, Arkansas (“FCI-FC”), filed a pro se pleading,
titled “Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief аnd Petition for Habeas
Corpus Immediate Relief Requested.” Doc. 1 at 1. Mr. Jennings presents his
pleading as a petitiоn for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Id. at 13),
but also states that “some claims might fall under tort or Bivens.” Id.
For reasons that follow, Mr. Jennings is notified that he may convert this case
from a habeas corpus proceeding to an action challenging the conditions of his
confinement under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), by filing notice that he consents to the conversion, on or before
Monday, June 20, 2022.
In his pleading,1 Mr. Jennings contends that his underlying health conditions
(hypertension, diabetes, obesity, asthma, and COPD) in combination with the
conditions of his confinement (overcrowding, lack of hot water, and mold) increase
the chance that he will contract COVID-19. Id. at 6, 12, 14, 31, 35. In addition, he
alleges that prisоn staff have pressured him to violate his religious beliefs, denied
him the opportunity to worship, and retaliated agаinst him for submitting grievances.
Id. at 17-22.
By way of relief, Mr. Jennings asks the Court to place him in home
confinement (Id. at 9), but he also seеks complete release from custody, stating that
“nothing short of an order ending his confinement will alleviate . . . Resрondent’s
failure to adequately protect [him] from these unconstitutional conditions.” Id. at 57.
As alternative relief to home confinement or release from custody, Mr. Jennings ask
the Court to order Defendants to “correct every constitutional violation . . . . and pay
any damages [the] Court sees fit.” Id. at 67.
Regardless of the relief sought, Eighth Circuit “precedent precludes
conditions-of-confinement claims using the vehicle of a habeas petition.” Spenсer v.
Haynes, 774 F.3d 467 , 468 (8th Cir. 2014). “Where a petitioner seeks a writ of
1 Mr. Jennings’ 173-page filing incorporates, almost word-for-word, an equally
voluminous pleading filed in this District by multiple FCI-FC inmates. See Taylor United States,
2:20-cv-00207-LPR-JTR, ECF No. 1 (E.D. Ark.). In that case, United States District Judge Lеe
Rudofsky dismissed the § 2241 habeas petition without prejudice and reclassified the action as a
civil rights case seeking relief from unconstitutional prison conditions. Id., ECF No. 10.
habeas corpus and fails to attack the validity of his sentence or the length of his state
[or federal] custody, the district court lacks the power or subject matter jurisdiction
to issue a writ.” Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071 , 1073-74 (8th Cir. 1996).
Here, Mr. Jennings complains about the conditions of his confinement,
including that his physical living cоnditions put him in jeopardy of contracting
COVID-19 and render his continued incarceration at FCI-FC unconstitutional.
However, he does not claim that the conditions of his confinement affect the length
or validity of his sentence.2 Becаuse Mr. Jennings attacks the conditions of his
confinement, not the validity of his sentence or of length of his custody, his claims
аre not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
2 After the advent of COVID-19, the Sixth Circuit held that where medically vulnerable
petitioners claim that no set of prison conditions could protect them from the spread of the virus,
their claims challenged the fact or extent, rather than the conditions of confinement, making the
claims cognizable under § 2241. Wilson v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829 , 838 (6th Cir. 2020). However,
оther jurisdictions have rejected the Sixth Circuit’s approach. See, e.g. Wilson v. Ponce, No.
CV204451MWFMRWX, 2020 WL 3053375 , at *14-19 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2020) (discussing split
оf authority and citing cases, but ruling that “the requested relief here [immediate evaluation for
home confinement ] is not cognizable as a habeas claim), appeal dismissed, No. 20-55760, 2020
WL 6293689 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2020); Wragg v. Ortiz, 462 F.Supp.3d 476 (D. N.J. May 27, 2020)
(ruling it lacked habeas jurisdiction under § 2241 to entertain federal prisoners’ COVID-19 related
Eighth Amendment claims); Keys v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low, No. 5:20-cv-319-Oc-02PRL,
2020 WL 3962233 , at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. July 13, 2020) (dismissing without prеjudice a § 2241
petition seeking release based on alleged conditions relating to COVID-19, because the claims
“are not cognizable under § 2241” and should be brought in a civil rights complaint).
The Sixth Circuit’s holding in Wilson is directly at odds with the Eighth Circuit’s decisiоn
in Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467 , 468 (8th Cir. 2014), which precludes the use of habeas corpus
to obtain review of a prisoner’s conditions of confinement claims. Even if the Eighth Circuit
followed the Sixth Circuit’s approach, which it does not, Mr. Jennings has requested money
damages and injunctive relief as alternative remedies, which distinguishes his claims from those
presented in Wilson and undermines his contention that nothing short of a court order ending his
confinement will provide relief from allegedly unсonstitutional prison conditions.
Although Mr. Jennings may not use a habeas action to pursue claims regarding
his conditions оf confinement, for screening purposes only, the Court finds that his
allegations raise potentially viable Eighth Amendment violations. The Eighth
Circuit has advised that the better practice in this situation is to obtain consent from
a pro se litigant bеfore converting a proposed habeas action to a civil rights action.
Spencer, 774 F.3d at 471 .
IT IS THEREFORE ORDRED that:
(1) IfMr. Jennings cоnsents to converting this case from a habeas action to
a prison conditions action pursuant to Bivens, he should file notice (a simple
statement), on or before Monday, June 20, 2022, that he consents to the conversion.’
(2) If Mr. Jеnnings files timely notice of his consent, the Court will then
consider his pending application to proceed in formа pauperis.* Doc. 6.
Dated this 20th day of May, 2022.
Lt
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
> If Mr. Jennings fails to consent to the conversion the Court will recommend that his
habeas claim be dismissed.
* Even though Mr. Jennings has paid the filing fee for a habeas petition (Doc. 5), if he elects
to сonvert this case to a prison conditions action, he must comply with the filing fee requirement
for prisoner cases, which requires him to pay $350. Although this amount may be paid in
installments, the entire amount must be paid, even if the case is dismissed before trial.