United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division
SUSANNE D. HELBIG, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge.
action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is before the
court on Petitioner's “Motion for Judicial Notice
and For Final Disposition of Movant's Original
Filing” (Doc. 10). Petitioner alleges that she was
subject to cruel and unusual punishment while serving her
federal sentence, and she seeks a reduction in her sentence
for these alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc.
1). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned
respectfully recommends that this action be dismissed because
federal law does not authorize the relief that Petitioner
seeks for alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment.
filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and
raised three grounds, which she has phrased as issues for the
court to address:
(1) “Denial of proper dental treatment, the infliction
of pain and suffering by prolonging a minor dental defect and
escalating it to emergency status by not completing started
invasive treatments. Is this cruel and unusual punishment?
(Doc. 1 at 3).
(2) “Does the adjudicated sentence permit or condone a
custodial agency to mistreat, torture, and/or cripple their
wards? (Doc. 1 at 4).
(3) “Does one day of pain and suffering calculate
punishment adjudicated the same as one day without, when it
comes to the calculation of time to be served incarcerated,
deprived of freedom?” (Doc. 1 at 4).
relief, Petitioner seeks an answer to these three questions,
calculation of the value of the time she served while she was
in pain, and a reduction in her sentence commensurate with
the pain she allegedly suffered. (Doc. 1 at 6).
review of the petition and the grounds asserted, the
undersigned took into consideration Petitioner's pro
se status and construed her petition as an action
brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999
(1971) (holding that there exists an implied private right of
action for damages against federal officers who violate a
citizen's constitutional rights). The undersigned,
therefore, ordered Petitioner to file an amended complaint.
filed an objection to the undersigned's order and argued
that she intentionally filed a habeas action because it was
the mechanism to obtain an immediate or speedier release from
federal prison. (Doc. 8). The undersigned overruled the
Petitioner's objection and noted that the Eleventh
Circuit does not permit “release from
confinement” as a remedy for a violation of the Eighth
Amendment. See Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d
1488, 1494 (11th Cir. 1991). The undersigned provided
Petitioner additional time to file an amended complaint and
pay the remainder of the filing fee or submitting a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 9).
of filing an amended complaint, however, Petitioner filed her
“Request for Judicial Notice and for Final Disposition
of Movant's Original Filing” (Doc. 10), which is
currently pending. Petitioner steadfastly maintains that this
action should proceed under § 2241. Her sole claim is
that the prison failed to provide dental care in violation of
the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts require a federal court to screen a
habeas petition prior to any answer or other pleading. This
Rule applies to habeas actions under both 28 U.S.C. §
2254 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See R. 1(b), Rules
Governing § 2254 (“[T]he district court may apply
any or all of these rules to a habeas petition not covered by
Rule 1(a).”). Rule 4 requires that the petition be
dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief in the district court.” R. 4, Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases; see McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S.
849, 856, 114 S.Ct. 2568, 2573 (1994).