1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DERRICK LEE SMITH, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

BONITA HOFFNER, 

 Respondent. 

 / 

Case Number: 14-cv-14067 

Hon. Judith E. Levy 

Mag. Judge Patricia T. Morris

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

I. INTRODUCTION

 Derrick Lee Smith (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Smith is incarcerated at 

the Lakeland Correctional Facility in Coldwater, Michigan, pursuant to 

convictions for six counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, 

kidnapping, and two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. 

His petition challenges a condition of his confinement – his placement 

on a prison priority watch list. 

5:14-cv-14067-JEL-PTM Doc # 4 Filed 12/10/14 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 8
2 

 Promptly after the filing of a habeas petition, the Court must 

undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether “it 

plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed 

to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 

Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If, 

after preliminary consideration, the Court determines that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court may summarily dismiss the 

petition. Id.; McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal 

courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that 

appears legally insufficient on its face.”). See also Allen v. Perini, 424 

F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir.1970) (district court has duty to “screen out” 

petitions that lack merit on their face). Rule 4 permits sue sponte

dismissal of a habeas petition that raises legally frivolous claims or 

contains factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. 

Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). After 

undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the Court concludes that 

the habeas petition is legally insufficient on its face. The Court also 

concludes that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis on appeal should be denied. 

5:14-cv-14067-JEL-PTM Doc # 4 Filed 12/10/14 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 9
3 

II. DISCUSSION 

 Petitioner challenges his placement on a priority 2 watch list. He 

argues that he has been provided no justification or explanation for this 

placement. According to Petitioner, placement on the priority 2 watch 

list implicates his visitation rights by separating him from other 

prisoners during visitation with family and friends. 

 “[F]ederal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints 

related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 

and a complaint under . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Muhammed v. Close, 540 

U.S. 749, 750 (2004). Habeas corpus petitions allow for challenges “to 

the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration.” 

Id. “[C]onstitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions of a 

prisoner’s confinement, . . .fall outside of that core [of habeas corpus] 

and may be brought pursuant to § 1983.” Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 

637, 643 (2004). 

 Petitioner acknowledges that his petition challenges a condition of 

his confinement rather than the validity of his confinement or its 

duration, but argues that a recent decision from the District of 

Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023 

5:14-cv-14067-JEL-PTM Doc # 4 Filed 12/10/14 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 10
4 

(D.C. Cir. 2014), vests this Court with habeas jurisdiction over a 

conditions of confinement claim. In Aamer, the Court of Appeals held 

that the district court had habeas jurisdiction over conditions of 

confinement claims made by detainees held at the United States Naval 

Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Id. at 1038. The Aamer decision, 

however, was limited to the unique circumstances of Guantanamo Bay 

detainees which clearly are not analogous to Petitioner’s circumstances. 

Moreover, this Court must follow Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit 

precedent. See United States v. Yoon, 398 F.3d 802, 806 (6th Cir. 2005) 

(unless the United States Supreme Court or the Sixth Circuit sitting en 

banc overrules or modifies Sixth Circuit precedent, courts must follow 

precedent). Controlling Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit authority 

holds that a prisoner may not challenge the conditions of confinement 

under § 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973)

(holding that a petition for habeas corpus is a means for challenging the 

fact or length of a prisoner’s confinement). Because, “[i]t is clear under 

current law that a prisoner complaining about the conditions of his 

confinement should bring suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” the Court will 

5:14-cv-14067-JEL-PTM Doc # 4 Filed 12/10/14 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 11
5 

summarily dismiss the petition. Young v. Martin, 83 F. App’x 107, 109 

(6th Cir. 2003) (citing Preiser, 411 U.S. at 498-99). 

III. Certificate of Appealability and Proceeding In Forma 

Pauperis

 The Court will deny a certificate of appealability. 

 In order to obtain a certificate of appealability, a prisoner must 

make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To demonstrate this denial, the applicant is 

required to show that reasonable jurists could debate whether, or agree 

that, the petition should have been resolved in a different manner, or 

that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). When 

a district court rejects a habeas petitioner’s constitutional claims on the 

merits, the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would 

find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims to be 

debatable or wrong. Id. at 484. “The district court must issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 

applicant.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 11(a), 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 For the reasons stated in this opinion, the Court will deny 

Petitioner a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would 

5:14-cv-14067-JEL-PTM Doc # 4 Filed 12/10/14 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 12
6 

not find this Court’s assessment of Petitioner’s claims to be debatable or 

wrong. The Court further concludes that Petitioner should not be 

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, as any appeal 

would be frivolous. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner fails to state a claim 

upon which habeas relief may be granted in this petition. 

 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus and DENIES a certificate of appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 10, 2014 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

 

5:14-cv-14067-JEL-PTM Doc # 4 Filed 12/10/14 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 13