Hill v. Brooks

Background

Joshua Spencer Hill, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed an incomplete form petition. The court reviewed it under the federal statutes and rules governing state-prisoner habeas petitions. Hill identified his concerns as “Sexual Assault . . . Sexual Harassment & Rape on Gabrielle Sierra Hill.” He stated that he was in custody because of a “civil commitment” and listed “Use of Force with a Deadly Weapon” as the reason for that commitment. His handwritten grounds for relief were difficult to decipher. The court understood that he might be alleging false accusations, sexual assault, and a bipolar diagnosis, but it could not determine the nature of his claims or whether he intended to file a habeas petition at all.

Court’s analysis

A federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenges custody under a state-court judgment on the ground that the custody violates federal law. The court explained that Hill’s filing did not clearly identify the custody or conviction-related decision he was challenging, the legal grounds for relief, or the supporting facts. It also named Sumer Brooks, a private individual, as the respondent. The court stated that a § 2254 petition must name the state officer who has custody of the petitioner; failing to name the proper custodian deprives the federal court of personal jurisdiction.

The court therefore allowed Hill to choose between two types of filing. If he files a § 2254 petition, he must use the court’s habeas form, explain whether he challenges his conviction, sentence, or sentence execution, state his grounds for relief, describe how he exhausted those claims in the available state courts, and identify the proper respondent. If he instead files a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must use the civil-rights form, identify each person who allegedly caused a constitutional violation, explain each person’s conduct, and exhaust available administrative remedies concerning prison conditions before proceeding.

Rulings and required next steps

The court GRANTED Hill’s motion for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. It DISMISSED the petition with leave to amend. Hill was given 28 days from the filing date of the order to submit either an amended habeas petition or a civil-rights complaint. The court ordered him to complete all sections of the applicable form, write clearly, and include the case number.

If Hill chooses a civil-rights action, the order requires him either to pay the $400 filing fee or submit a new application to proceed without paying the fee upfront, together with the required affidavit and certified six-month prison trust-account statement. The order states that a prisoner granted fee-waiver status would pay a $350 filing fee through installments because the $50 administrative fee is waived. Failure to meet the applicable 28-day requirements will result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. The court did not reach the merits of Hill’s underlying allegations. Judge Yvonne Rogers issued the order.