Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jimenez v. Attorney General

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

March 27, 2018

FELICITO AVENDANO JIMENEZ, Petitioner,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          BERNARD M. JONES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Petitioner, appearing pro se, brings an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming he is being held under “false pretense [and] false [i]dentity.” Amend. Pet. [Doc. No. 12]. Chief United States District Joe Heaton has referred the matter for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). In accordance with Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, [1] the Amended Petition has been promptly examined, and for the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that it be summarily dismissed.

         I. Background

         In December 2017, Petitioner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he had been arrested in California and extradited to Oklahoma under the name “Uxiel Rodriguez Torres, ” who had pleaded guilty to “possession of CDS” in Oklahoma County District Court, in Case No. CF-2015-1286. Pet. at 1, 6 [Doc. No. 1]. Petitioner explained that he is “being charged for escape, ” but claimed that he is not Mr. Torres, but is instead “Felicito Avendano Jimenez.” Id. at 6. Petitioner sought “freedom” but also raised numerous civil rights claims and requested monetary damages. Id. at 6-15.

         The Court ordered Petitioner to amend his habeas petition to name a proper Respondent and to omit the civil rights claims.[2] [Doc. Nos. 4, 6]. In response, Petitioner filed the instant petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, essentially arguing again that he is being held under “false pretense” and “false [i]dentity” at the Woodward County Jail. Amend Pet. at 1. Petitioner adds that he was extradited to Oklahoma “without [his] signature, ” and, liberally construed, without his consent. Id. at 7. Petitioner omitted most of his civil rights claims, but still alleges that unidentified parties held him “in [an] inhumane environment” and committed “mental[] abuse.” Id. Petitioner seeks release from confinement. Id. at 8.

         The Court judicially notices that “Uxiel Torres-Rodriguez” was arrested in October 2017 and is charged in Woodward County District Court with escaping from the Department of Corrections. State v. Uxiel Torres-Rodriguez, et. al., Case No. CF-2015-411 (Woodward Co. Dist. Ct. filed 10/22/15).[3] Petitioner/Rodriguez is scheduled for preliminary hearing on April 3, 2018. Id.

         II. Analysis

         A. Governing Standard

         Rule 4 requires this Court to review habeas petitions promptly and to summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

         B. Grounds for Dismissal

         1. The Court Cannot Grant Relief on Petitioner's Civil Rights Claims in his Section 2241 Action

         While Petitioner does not repeat his request for monetary relief, he brings civil rights claims involving conditions of confinement and mental abuse. See Amend. Pet. at 7-8. Such claims implicate injunctive or monetary relief, which the Court cannot grant under Section 2241. See Ash v. Addison, No. CIV-14-904-R, 2015 WL 1636859, at *2, n.1 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 10, 2015) (unpublished district court order) (denying relief under Section 2241 and noting: “To the extent Petitioner requests relief other than habeas relief, i.e., monetary damages . . . this relief is not available in a habeas action.”). And, because Petitioner apparently declined to file a separate action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, despite the Court's instructions and provision of forms, see supra n. 2, the Court should not convert Petitioner's civil rights claims involving the conditions of his confinement and mental abuse into a Section 1983 action.

         2. The Court Should Abstain from Addressing Petitioner's Claims Involving his Extradition and Pending Prosecution

         The Court must then abstain from addressing Petitioner's habeas claims under Younger ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.