Wells v. Miller
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-11231
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Wells v. Miller, Judge Liman declined to consider a request for medical tests because it challenged prison conditions, not habeas relief.
Petitioner Carl D. Wells’s request for court intervention to obtain additional medical tests or procedures was not considered in this habeas proceeding; Respondent Supt Mark Miller was named in the case.
What happened
In Wells v. Miller, Petitioner Carl D. Wells sent the court a letter describing medical conditions and asking it to help obtain additional medical tests or procedures.
The court said the requested relief was unrelated to relief available under the federal law governing habeas petitions. It explained that claims challenging prison conditions generally fall outside the central purpose of a habeas case.
Judge Lewis J. Liman acknowledged Wells’s letter but ruled that the court could not consider the requested relief. The order did not grant the requested medical intervention.
The detailed version
- Wells v. Miller · No. 1:21-cv-11231
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 13, 2022
Background
Petitioner Carl D. Wells sent the court a letter dated September 22, 2022. The letter described certain medical conditions and asked the court to intervene to facilitate additional medical tests or procedures.
Court’s reasoning
The court determined that the relief requested in the letter was unrelated to any relief Wells might be entitled to under the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A habeas petition generally challenges the legality of a person’s custody. Citing the Supreme Court, the court explained that constitutional claims challenging the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement—including claims seeking money or an order requiring action—fall outside the central scope of habeas proceedings.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman acknowledged Wells’s letter but stated that the court could not consider the relief it requested. The order did not grant the request for additional medical tests or procedures.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.