Lemus-Morales v. Olajda
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-01050
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lemus-Morales v. Olajda, Judge Swain denied a federal habeas petition because it did not challenge unlawful custody or seek habeas relief.
Vincent Lemus-Morales’s § 2241 petition was denied; the Bureau of Prisons officers and the Department of Justice were not treated as proper habeas respondents.
What happened
Lemus-Morales v. Olajda concerned Vincent Lemus-Morales’s petition under a federal law allowing people in custody to challenge unlawful detention. He alleged that carelessness, negligence, and deliberate indifference exposed him to COVID-19 during transportation through FTC Oklahoma.
Lemus-Morales sought a finding that his allegations were true and discipline or sanctions against two Bureau of Prisons officers and the Department of Justice. The court explained that his filing did not challenge his custody, present conditions of confinement, or seek relief that a habeas petition could provide.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the petition and declined to allow an amended filing because the defects could not be fixed by amendment. The court also said no certificate allowing an appeal would issue and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Lemus-Morales v. Olajda · No. 1:22-cv-01050
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 19, 2022
Background
Vincent Lemus-Morales, who was incarcerated at F.C.I. Fairton when the order was entered, filed a petition without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He alleged that Bureau of Prisons Officers Olajda and Makanya and the Department of Justice caused him to be exposed to COVID-19 during his transit through FTC Oklahoma because of carelessness, negligence, and deliberate indifference. He sought a finding that his allegations were true and discipline or sanctions against the respondents. He paid the $5 filing fee after the court directed him either to pay it or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that § 2241 can be used by a federal prisoner to challenge the legality of custody and, in some circumstances, to seek an injunction addressing conditions of confinement. An injunction is a court order requiring or forbidding particular conduct. But the court found that Lemus-Morales did not allege that he was being held in violation of federal law or the Constitution, did not challenge his present conditions of confinement, and did not seek relief from an injury that could be remedied through habeas relief.
The court also stated that the two Bureau of Prisons officers and the Department of Justice were not proper respondents in a § 2241 case. It explained that the proper respondent is the person’s custodian, identified as a nominal party for the government. Because Lemus-Morales did not seek damages, the court declined to treat his allegations as possible claims under Bivens or the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court further noted that claims arising from FTC Oklahoma would not have proper venue in the Southern District of New York. These observations did not convert the case into another type of claim.
Disposition
The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241. It declined to grant leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.