Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00001/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00001-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Elizabeth Schipke
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Mary Elizabeth Schipke, 

Movant, 

vs. 

United States of America, 

Respondent.

No. CV 10-001-TUC-CKJ (BPV)

No. CR 04-2195-TUC-CKJ (BPV) 

ORDER 

 Presently pending before the Court is Movant’s “Motion for Release/Discharge 

Hearing” (Doc. 13); “Motion for Common Law Writ of Mandamus – Petition for 

Enforcement of Civil Rights (Emergency)” (Doc. 16); “Motion for Appointment of 

Counsel 18 U.S.C. §3006A or for Alternative Relief (Immediate Relief Requested)” 

(Doc. 17). 

Motion to Appoint Counsel

 While there is no constitutional right to counsel on federal collateral review, see 

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987), this Court has discretion to appoint 

counsel for movants seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 when “the interests of justice 

so requires.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 

 Movant has not made the necessary showing for appointment of counsel at this 

time. Movant alleges that she is indigent, chronically-ill, disabled, and being subjected to 

“First Amendment Retaliation,” and additionally, suffers from “[Segregated Housing 

Unit “SHU”] Syndrome” after “6 1⁄2 months of prison torture in the SHU.” (Doc. 17) The 

case is fully briefed, and no evidentiary hearing has been set. 

Case 4:10-cv-00001-CKJ Document 22 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Movant otherwise seeks relief concerning her conditions of confinement at 

Florence Correctional Center, Florence, Arizona. To seek relief against prison officials 

for violations of constitutional or federal statutory rights, a federal inmate must file an 

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 

rather than a habeas petition. Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991); see 

Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) (“constitutional claims that merely 

challenge the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement, whether the inmate seeks monetary 

or injunctive relief, fall outside [the] core [of habeas relief] and may be brought pursuant 

to § 1983”); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (“Challenges to the validity 

of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas 

corpus . . . ; requests for relief turning on the circumstances of confinement may be 

presented in a § 1983 action.”); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing 

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (a civil rights action is the proper method 

to challenge conditions of confinement)). Accordingly, appointment of counsel at this 

stage of the proceedings would serve no purpose, as counsel could not pursue issues 

regarding Movant’s conditions of confinement in this §2255 petition. Movant’s motion 

for appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice. If, at a later date, the Court 

determines that an evidentiary hearing is required, counsel will be appointed in 

accordance with Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. 

Motion for Common Law Writ of Mandamus – Petition for Enforcement of Civil Rights

 Also pending before the Court is Movant’s motion to “obtain her immediate relief 

from unconstitutional confinement, and from cruel and unusual punishment, at [Florence 

Correctional Center]. (Doc. 16.) 

 To the extent that Movant seeks injunctive or compensatory relief based upon 

prison officials’ alleged violation of her constitutional or federal statutory rights, Movant 

must commence an action pursuant to Bivens. When bringing a Bivens action, a prisoner 

Case 4:10-cv-00001-CKJ Document 22 Filed 09/27/11 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

must either pay the $350.00 filing fee in a lump sum or, if granted the privilege of 

proceeding in forma pauperis, pay the fee incrementally as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(b)(1). An application to proceed in forma pauperis requires an affidavit of 

indigence and a certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement for the six months 

preceding the filing of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). To assist prisoners in 

meeting these requirements, the Court requires use of a form application. LRCiv 3.4(a). 

The Clerk of Court will mail Movant the court-approved forms for filing a civil rights 

complaint and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Non-Habeas) to use in filing a 

new action pursuant to Bivens. 

 To the extent Movant is requesting enforcement of a court order that she be 

immediately transferred to the Federal Medical Center (FMC) Carswell in Fort Worth, 

Texas, this Court’s review of the related criminal docket (CR 04-2195-TUC-CKJ) 

demonstrates that, at the time of the final disposition hearing, the District Judge made a 

recommendation that Movant be designated to FMC Carswell where she could receive 

the appropriate medical and mental health treatment required. Id., Doc. 593. Such 

recommendations are non-binding. See18 U.S.C. 3621(b). Nonetheless, a review of the 

appellate court docket indicates that the United States Attorney had informed the Circuit 

Court, on September 6, 2011, that he anticipated Movant’s designation to FMC Carswell. 

(C.A. No. 11-10266, DktEntry 6-1) A review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate 

locator website has confirmed this designation1

. 

 For these reasons, Movant’s motion will be denied as moot. 

Motion for Release/Discharge Hearing

 Also pending before the Court is a memorandum filed on June 8, 2011, designated 

a “Motion for Release/Discharge Hearing.” (Doc. 13) In addition to the motion, two 

additional attachments were filed. (Docs. 14, 15.) 

 

1 www.bop.gov 

Case 4:10-cv-00001-CKJ Document 22 Filed 09/27/11 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 To the extent Movant again raises issues of the appointment of counsel, release 

from solitary confinement, and transfer to FMC Carswell for medical treatment, these 

issues have been discussed and decided above or are resolved by her transfer to FMC 

Carswell, a Federal Medical Center, and are thus denied as moot. 

 To the extent Movant seeks relief based upon prison officials’ alleged violation of 

her constitutional or federal statutory rights, Movant is again advised that, to the extent 

that Movant seeks injunctive or compensatory relief based upon prison officials’ alleged 

violation of her constitutional or federal statutory rights, Movant must commence an 

action pursuant to Bivens. 

 To the extent this motion is filed in reply to the Government’s response to 

Movant’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence by a person in federal custody, it 

is untimely pursuant to the District Court’s screening order allowing Movant thirty (30) 

days to file a reply. (Doc. 4) The Government’s response was filed on May 27, 2010. 

(Doc. 11) This motion was filed over a year later, on June 8, 2011, (Doc. 13), and thus 

will be stricken as an untimely reply. 

 To the extent Movant is attempting to raise new claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel during Movant’s trial (see Doc. 13, p.3), these claims are not properly before the 

Court. Because Movant has failed to raise the issues, as required by Rule 2(b) of the 

Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, they are not properly before this Court. Cf.

Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005) (citing Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing §2254 

Cases, which instructs Movant to “specify all grounds of relief available” and to “state 

the facts supporting each ground”); Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th 

Cir.1994) (indicating that the only habeas claims a district court will consider are those 

contained in the habeas petition itself or those raised in an amended petition or statement 

of additional claims). Movant has not filed a motion to amend her petition pursuant to 

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and, accordingly, the Court will not 

Case 4:10-cv-00001-CKJ Document 22 Filed 09/27/11 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

consider any new claims raised for the first time in these papers. 

 To the extent Movant is raising new claims regarding the District Court’s 

revocation of supervised release, Movant presently has a direct appeal from the 

revocation of supervised release, judgment and sentence pending in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (No. 11-10266). For reasons of judicial economy, 

district courts should not consider an application for writ of habeas corpus when the 

Movant has a direct appeal pending in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. United 

States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997). “ ‘Except under most unusual 

circumstances ... no defendant in a federal criminal prosecution is entitled to have a direct 

appeal and a section 2255 proceeding considered simultaneously in an effort to overturn 

the conviction and sentence.’ “ Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988) 

(quoting Jack v. United States, 435 F.2d 317, 318 (9th Cir.1970)). See also Rule 5, Rules 

Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, Advisory 

Comm. Note (1976) ( “[T]he courts have held that [a § 2255 motion] is inappropriate if 

the movant is simultaneously appealing the decision.”). There are no unusual 

circumstances that would justify an exception to this rule. Furthermore, as discussed 

above, because Movant has failed to raise the issues, as required by Rule 2(b) of the 

Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, such claims are also not properly before this 

Court. 

To the extent that this motion requests that her pending pro se “Motion Under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody” 

(“Motion”). (Doc.# 1.) be granted, or an evidentiary hearing be set, the motion will be 

denied as untimely and duplicative. The Magistrate Judge has taken the matter under 

advisement, and in due course, after it has fully considered the documents filed by the 

parties, including the motion, the answer, any transcripts, and records of prior 

proceedings, and any materials submitted under Rule 7, will determine whether an 

Case 4:10-cv-00001-CKJ Document 22 Filed 09/27/11 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

evidentiary hearing is warranted, and file proposed findings of fact and recommendations 

for disposition. See Rules 8(a) and 8(b), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255. 

Accordingly, for all these reasons, Movant’s Motion for Release/Discharge (Doc. 

13) will be denied. 

Warnings: 

 Address Changes 

Movant was previously warned, in the Court’s January 12, 2010 order (Doc. 4.) 

that she must file and serve a notice of change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) 

of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Movant was warned that failure to comply may 

result in dismissal of this action. Movant is again admonished that failure to file and serve 

a notice of change of address will likely result in dismissal of this action. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 

(1) Movant’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 17) is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

(2) Movant’s Motion for Common Law Writ of Mandamus – Petition for 

Enforcement of Civil Rights (Doc. 16) is DENIED as moot. 

(3) Movant’s Motion for Release/Discharge Hearing (Doc. 13) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to: 

(4) UPDATE Movant’s address with the following address: 

Mary Elizabeth Schipke 

Reg. 01690-184 

FMC Carswell 

Federal Medical Center 

P.O. Box 27137 

Fort Worth, TX 76127 

Case 4:10-cv-00001-CKJ Document 22 Filed 09/27/11 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(5) MAIL Movant the court-approved forms for filing a civil rights complaint 

and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Non-Habeas) to use in 

filing a new action pursuant to Bivens. 

Dated this 26th day of September, 2011. 

Case 4:10-cv-00001-CKJ Document 22 Filed 09/27/11 Page 7 of 7