-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DOUGLAS JACKSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MARY BERGHUIS, 

Respondent. 

 / 

Case No. 15-cv-11622 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE RELIEF 

[19] 

INTRODUCTION

 Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254. On May 12, 2015, this Court held the petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

abeyance to permit Petitioner to return to the state courts to exhaust additional 

claims which had not yet been presented to the state courts. The Court conditioned 

this tolling upon Petitioner initiating his state court post-conviction remedies 

within sixty days of receiving this Court’s order and returning to federal court 

within sixty days of completing the exhaustion of his state court post-conviction 

remedies. On July 7, 2015, this Court denied Petitioner’s request for legal 

assistance but granted Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file his postconviction motion for relief from judgment. 

2:15-cv-11622-GAD-MJH Doc # 22 Filed 07/06/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 583
-2- 

 Petitioner has filed a motion for protective relief. For the reasons that 

follow, the motion is denied without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

BACKGROUND

 Petitioner claims that while incarcerated at the Baraga Correctional Facility, 

he was sexually molested by a corrections officer. Petitioner threatened to report 

the incident to a psychologist and ultimately filed a grievance. Petitioner claims 

that this corrections officer wrote a misconduct report against him. As a result of 

this report, Petitioner was placed in segregation on February 17, 2016. 

 Petitioner claims that in February of 2016, he asked the prison law librarian 

to provide him assistance with the preparation of a motion for superintending 

control, so that he could obtain the register of actions from his criminal case. 

Petitioner claims that the law librarian imposed a barrier to his access to the courts 

by incorrectly advising Petitioner that he would have to file a petition for writ of 

mandamus rather than a motion for superintending control. Petitioner further 

claims that the law librarian attempted to get Petitioner to sign a contract for the 

Legal Writer Program (LWP) to obtain assistance with his motion for 

superintending control. On February 20, 2016, a legal writer met with Petitioner. 

Petitioner was told that if he did not sign the LWP agreement, the law librarian 

would not allow the legal writer to provide him with the legal document that the 

2:15-cv-11622-GAD-MJH Doc # 22 Filed 07/06/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 584
-3- 

legal writer had prepared for Petitioner. Petitioner refused to sign the LWP 

agreement and claims that he was unable to obtain a copy of the register of actions 

from his criminal case. Petitioner claims that on February 26, 2016, he submitted a 

prisoner civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to an assistant resident 

unit supervisor. Petitioner expected the complaint to be transferred to the law 

librarian, so he in turn could give it to the legal writer for assistance with its 

preparation. Petitioner claims that he did not receive the required receipt showing 

that the legal writer received his documents for preparation. 

 Petitioner claims that the parties have conspired to violate his civil rights. 

Petitioner requests a temporary restraining order to transfer him from the Baraga 

Correctional Facility to another prison where he can litigate his civil and criminal 

cases without reprisal from prison staff. 

LAW AND ANALYSIS

 Where a prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his or her 

physical imprisonment and the relief that he or she seeks is a determination that he 

or she is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that 

imprisonment, his or her sole federal remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). However, habeas corpus is not 

available to prisoners who are complaining only of mistreatment during their legal 

incarceration. See Lutz v. Hemingway, 476 F. Supp. 2d 715, 718 (E.D. Mich. 

2:15-cv-11622-GAD-MJH Doc # 22 Filed 07/06/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 585
-4- 

2007). Complaints which involve conditions of confinement “do not relate to the 

legality of the petitioner’s confinement, nor do they relate to the legal sufficiency 

of the criminal court proceedings which resulted in the incarceration of the 

petitioner.” Id. (quoting Maddux v. Rose, 483 F. Supp. 661, 672 (E.D. Tenn. 

1980)). Additionally, a civil rights action, rather than a habeas petition, is the 

proper vehicle for a prisoner seeking transfer to another facility. See Wiley v. Holt, 

42 F. App’x. 399, 400 (10th Cir. 2002). 

Petitioner’s claims involving the conditions at the Baraga Correctional 

Facility are challenges to the conditions of confinement. See In re Owens, 525 F. 

App’x. 287, 290 (6th Cir. 2013). Petitioner’s confinement in segregation is 

likewise a condition of confinement. See e.g. Frazier v. Hesson, 40 F. Supp. 2d 

957, 964–65 (W.D. Tenn. 1999). Moreover, Petitioner’s claim that he is being 

denied access to the courts is also a challenge to the conditions of confinement. See 

Allen v. Lamanna, 13 F. App’x. 308, 311 (6th Cir. 2001). None of these claims 

may be maintained as a habeas action. 

 Petitioner’s challenges to the conditions of his confinement “fall outside of 

the cognizable core of habeas corpus relief.” See Hodges v. Bell, 170 F. App’x. 

389, 393 (6th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, Petitioner’s request for transfer would be 

more appropriately adjudicated as a civil rights action. The proper course for a 

district court after it determines that the substance of a state prisoner’s pro se 

2:15-cv-11622-GAD-MJH Doc # 22 Filed 07/06/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 586
-5- 

habeas petition is a subject more appropriately reached under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is 

to dismiss the petition without prejudice to allow Petitioner to raise his potential 

civil rights claims properly as a § 1983 action. See Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 

710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the Court will deny Petitioner’s motion for 

protective relief without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for protective relief 

[19] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner filing a civil rights 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 6, 2016 s/Gershwin A. Drain 

 Detroit, Michigan GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon 

counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to 

their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of 

Electronic Filing on July 6, 2016. 

 s/Tanya R. Bankston 

 TANYA R.BANKSTON 

 Case Manager & Deputy Clerk 

2:15-cv-11622-GAD-MJH Doc # 22 Filed 07/06/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 587