Brown v. USP Big Sandy, No. 7:2023cv00041 - Document 5 (E.D. Ky. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1. Court DENIES Terrance Brown's DE 1 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 2. Court DENIES all pending motions as moot. 3. This Court directs Clerk to STRIKE this matter from the docket. Signed by Judge Robert E. Wier on 5/12/2023. (RCB) cc: COR and Terrance Brown by US Mail
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brown v. USP Big Sandy Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE TERRANCE BROWN, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. USP BIG SANDY, Respondent. No. 7:23-CV-41-REW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER *** *** *** *** In March of this year Terrance Brown, an inmate confined at the federal penitentiary in Inez, Kentucky, sent a document to this Court titled “Motion to grant and execute warrant on premises to collect Federal Complaint deposition information and analyze also search the person of Terrance Brown.” See Brown v. USP Big Sandy Penitentiary, No. 7:23-CV-27-REW (E.D. Ky. 2023), DE 1 (Complaint). The letter requested a federal investigation of undefined purpose and scope to be conducted at the prison “regarding a crime of violence, a violation against civil rights, and etc.” See id. at 1; DE 1-1 at 3 (Letter). The Clerk docketed Brown’s letter as a civil rights complaint for administrative purposes. See id. DE 1 (Complaint). Two weeks later, Brown sent a letter requesting that the Clerk send him a form petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See id. at DE 4 (letter). The Court upon initial review dismissed Brown’s construed complaint, noting numerous deficiencies including the absence of Court authority to order federal law enforcement officials to conduct investigations. See Id. at DE 6 (Order). The Court separately directed the Clerk to send Brown the form habeas corpus petition he had requested along with the documents necessary to seek pauper status. See Id. at DE 5 (Order). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Shortly thereafter Brown filed three additional documents, including a handwritten version of his original complaint, a motion to appoint counsel to assist him in filing a Section 2241 petition, and another letter directed to the undersigned requesting guidance as to the proper means to obtain discovery. See Id. at DE 7 (Letter), DE 9 (Motion), and DE 10 (Letter). In the second letter, Brown explained that during a prior surgery he received for a gunshot wound, doctors had implanted a “pen register” and a microphone into his body, running from his groin to his head. Brown indicates that the device collects, records, transmits, and emits sounds, causing him great mental disturbance. See Id. at DE 10 at 1-2. The Court entered an Order denying relief in the alreadyclosed case but advising Brown that he could seek habeas counsel appointment if he filed a new Section 2241 petition and that he could file a new civil action regarding his latest allegations if he wished. See Id. at DE 11 (Order). Brown filed his habeas corpus petition in this action shortly thereafter. See DE 1 (Petition). Brown used the provided form, although he left it almost entirely blank. Brown states that his petition concerns discovery of the “pen register” and seeks a deposition in furtherance of a federal criminal complaint or investigation. See Id. at 1, 8. Brown indicates that payment of the filing fee is (or may be) forthcoming. See DE 1-1 at 1 (letter). He also filed a separate motion requesting the appointment of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. See DE 3 (motion). Federal law directs the Court to deny an application for a writ of habeas corpus if it is apparent that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see also Pillow v. Burton, 852 F. App’x 986, 989 (6th Cir. 2021). Brown, apparently misconstruing the Court’s final Order in his earlier case, seeks a writ of habeas corpus to compel an investigation into his claims. But as previously explained, the Court lacks the authority to do so as a general 2 matter. Cf. United States v. Nixon, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 3100-01 (1974) (noting that the decision to investigate any particular matter is left to the discretion of the Attorney General). This is doubly so in a habeas corpus proceeding, where the available remedy is earlier or immediate release from custody rather than relief from conditions of confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 1833 (1973) (“... the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and that the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.”); Rasul v. Bush, 124 S. Ct. 2686, 2692 (2004). Habeas corpus relief is not the proper mechanism to seek relief other than release from custody. See Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959, 1969-70 (2020); Sullivan v. United States, 90 F. App’x 862, 863 (6th Cir. 2004) (“§ 2241 is a vehicle not for challenging prison conditions, but for challenging matters concerning the execution of a sentence such as the computation of good-time credits.”). The Court will therefore deny the petition, leaving Brown free to assert his claims or seek relief by other appropriate means. See Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Court DENIES Terrance Brown’s DE 1 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 2. The Court DENIES all pending motions as moot. 3. This Court directs the Clerk to STRIKE this matter from the docket. This the 12th day of May, 2023. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
