Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cr-00624/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cr-00624-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bryan Keith Richardson
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARDSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-cr-00624-SI-1 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION

Re: Dkt. No. 77

On September 19, 2016, defendant Bryan Keith Richardson, a federal prisoner at the 

Federal Correctional Institution in El Reno, Oklahoma (“FCI El Reno”), filed a document entitled 

“Motion for Appropriate Relief.”1 Dkt. No. 77. In the motion, defendant argues that prison 

officials are not providing him with necessary psychiatric treatment or medications. Id. 

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined 

are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 

(1993). A mentally ill prisoner may establish unconstitutional treatment by prison officials by 

showing that officials have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Doty v. 

Cnty. of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994). Such a claim, however, is not properly framed 

as a “Motion for Appropriate Relief” made to an inmate’s sentencing judge. See Nelson v. 

Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) (“[C]onstitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions 

of a prisoner’s confinement . . . may be brought pursuant to § 1983”); Muhammad v. Close, 540

U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (citations omitted) (“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to 

 

1 Defendant currently has an unrelated motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed with the Court. Dkt. No. 67. The Court stayed defendant’s section 

2255 motion pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, 

136 S. Ct. 2510 (cert. granted June 27, 2016). Dkt. No. 75.

Case 3:09-cr-00624-SI Document 81 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus [citation]; requests for relief 

turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.”). 

This Court sentenced defendant nearly seven years ago. Defendant now asks the Court, in 

the same action under which he was sentenced, to order prison officials at FCI El Reno (located in 

El Reno, Oklahoma) to provide him with psychiatric treatment and medication. See Dkt. No. 77. 

The Court recognizes defendant’s desire to receive treatment during incarceration and his 

frustration about frequent housing transfers. Should defendant wish to challenge his conditions in 

custody, however, he must do so in an appropriate civil rights action, naming prison official 

defendants, in a court with jurisdiction over the dispute and the parties. This Court simply cannot 

provide the relief defendant seeks in his motion. Accordingly, defendant’s motion is DENIED.

This order resolves Dkt. No. 77.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-00624-SI Document 81 Filed 11/22/16 Page 2 of 2