-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DOUGLAS JACKSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WARDEN LES PARISH, 

Respondent. 

 / 

Case No. 15-cv-11622 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MICHAEL J. HLUCHANIUK

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE [#49], MOTION FOR

INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL [#51], AND MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION [#52] 

I. INTRODUCTION

Present before the Court in this habeas action are three Motions: (1) 

Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Immediate Release from Administrative 

Segregation [#49], (2) Petitioner’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal of 

Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Meaningful Access to 

the Courts [#51], and (3) Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s 

February 27, 2019 Opinion and Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Compel 

Meaningful Access to the Courts [#52]. The Court will address each of 

Petitioner’s Motions in turn. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will DENY 

each Motion [#49, #51, #52]. 
-2- 

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Court will Deny Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Immediate 

Release from Administrative Segregation [#49].

Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Immediate Release alleges that prison 

officials, without cause, elevated his Class II Minor Misconduct charge to a Class I 

Major Misconduct charge as a pretext to place him in administrative segregation. 

Petitioner claims these officials placed him in administrative segregation as 

punishment for his recent court filings. He now asks the Court to intervene and 

order his immediate release. The Court will Deny this request. 

“When a prisoner challenges the conditions of his or her confinement but not 

the fact or length of his custody, the proper mechanism is a civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Turnboe v. Gundy, 27 F. App’x 339 (6th Cir. 2001). 

Here, Petitioner is raising a claim that is inappropriate for a habeas action. His 

Motion is not challenging the fact or the length of his custody; rather, he is 

challenging a condition of his confinement. This claim should therefore be 

brought in a § 1983 suit naming the appropriate officials as defendants. 

Accordingly, the Court will DENY Petitioner’s Motion [#49]. 
-3- 

B. The Court will Deny Petitioner’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal 

of Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion to Compel 

Meaningful Access to the Courts [#51]. 

Petitioner’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal requests, among other things, 

that the Court strike Respondent’s Response to his Motion to Compel Meaningful 

Access to the Courts. Petitioner maintains that he never received a copy of 

Respondent’s responsive brief, and thus, was prevented from filing a reply. 

Respondent, however, included a Certificate of Service with their brief, attesting 

that they mailed a copy of their Response to Petitioner at his listed address. See 

Dkt. No. 48, p. 12 (Pg. ID 2582). Hence, the Court will not strike Respondent’s 

filing on this basis. Moreover, because the Court has already denied Petitioner’s 

Motion to Compel Meaningful Access to the Courts, this issue is now moot. 

In addition, Petitioner asks the Court to find that his placement in 

administrative segregation violates the Court’s October 29, 2018 Opinion and 

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Stop Transfer During the Pendency of 

Habeas Corpus Proceedings. See Dkt. 42. That Opinion and Order prohibited 

Respondent from transferring Petitioner to a different prison facility during the 

pendency of his habeas proceedings. But contrary to Petitioner’s belief, it did not 

prohibit Respondent from transferring him to a different unit within the same 

prison facility. Accordingly, the Court will DENY Petitioner’s Motion [#51]. 
-4- 

C. The Court will Deny Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the 

Court’s February 27, 2019 Opinion and Order Denying Petitioner’s 

Motion to Compel Meaningful Access to the Courts [#52].

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration asserts that the Court’s February 27, 

2019 Opinion and Order Denying his Motion to Compel Meaningful Access to the 

Courts contained a palpable defect. Specifically, Petitioner claims to have not 

received a copy of Respondent’s responsive brief, and consequently, suggests the 

Court erred by entering a decision without giving him an adequate opportunity to 

reply. Further, that the Court ignored the Supreme Court’s holding in Bounds v. 

Smith, which Petitioner interprets as requiring prison authorities to provide him 

with either physical access to the law library or assistance from persons trained in 

the law. See 430 U.S. 817 (1976). 

Local Rule 7.1(h) governs motions for reconsideration. Under this rule, the 

Court generally may not grant a motion for reconsideration that merely presents 

the same issues upon which the Court already ruled. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). 

Rather, the movant must demonstrate that there is a palpable defect in the Court’s 

order and that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. 

Id. “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, 

manifest, or plain.” Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp. 2d 714, 

718 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 
-5- 

Here, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a palpable defect in the Court’s Order 

or that correcting any such defect would result in a different disposition of his case. 

The Court denied Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Meaningful Access to the Courts 

on two grounds: (1) Petitioner failed to bring his claim in a § 1983 suit, as opposed 

to in a habeas action; and (2) Petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice or an 

intentional violation of his constitutional rights. Either ground was sufficient to 

deny the Motion. Because Petitioner cannot cure both of these deficiencies, his 

Motion for Reconsideration must be DENIED [#52]. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court will DENY Petitioner’s Motions [# 

49, #51, #52]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 10, 2019 

 s/Gershwin A. Drain 

 HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Court Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys 

of record on this date, April 10, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Teresa McGovern 

Case Manager