Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Juste v. Correct Care Recovery Solutions

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

February 3, 2017

Andre Juste, #078-361-619, Petitioner,
Correct Care Recovery Solutions, Columbia Regional Care Center, Respondents.


          Thomas E. Rogers, III., United States Magistrate Judge

         This is an action filed by a pro se litigant who indicates that he is an immigration detainee.[1]Because Petitioner cannot leave the facility where he is detained on his own, in the event that a limitations issue arises, Petitioner shall have the benefit of the holding in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner's pleading was filed at the moment of delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to District Court). Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge.

         The undersigned is authorized to review habeas petitions for relief, as well as § 1983 actions, and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. Petitioner's case is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.


         Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se pleadings and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The review has been conducted in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995)(en banc); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983); Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291 (4th Cir. 1978); and Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). The Petitioner is a pro se litigant, and thus his pleadings are accorded liberal construction. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(per curiam); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972). Even under this less stringent standard, the petition is subject to summary dismissal. The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Department of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).

         Furthermore, this court is charged with screening Petitioner's lawsuit to determine if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Following the required initial review, it is recommended that the Petition/Complaint submitted in this case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

         1. Procedural History and Facts

         Petitioner filed a handwritten “Petitioner Writ of [] 28 U.S.C. 2241 and 2242 Release out CRCC” on November 7, 2016. Plaintiff named as Respondents Correct Care Recovery Solutions and Columbia Regional Care Center. Petitioner was housed at that location in Columbia, South Carolina, when he mailed the Petition. ECF No. 1. The Petition stated it was a writ of habeas corpus challenging the unlawful and wrongful housing by Immigration and Custom Enforcement(ICE). Petitioner states he is being overheld.

         As initially filed, the Petition was framed as a habeas action by Petitioner. On November 16, 2016, Petitioner was ordered to completely fill out a AO242 form, Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 USC § 2241 and to submit an in forma pauperis application. Petitioner did so on December 12, 2016. Under question eleven, Petitioner stated this case concerns an immigration proceeding and gave the following pertinent information. Petitioner's removal order was dated January 26, 2016 and he appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals on March 28, 2016. His case was pending and the issue raised was wrongful detention and detention more than six months.[2]

         However, question five of the Petition form asks what are you challenging in this petition and has the option to select immigration detention. Petitioner did not select immigration detention, but selected other and stated he was being forcibly medicated.

         In the grounds for the Petition, Petitioner states he did not consent to medical treatment, was being forced to take medication, and he was wrongfully detained. As the request for relief, the Petition form states monetary compensation.

         Petitioner has created a concoction of two very different claims. Some of his statements reference habeas and other statements can be construed to allege a § 1983 claim. This court will analyze the Petition/Complaint under each framework; both claims are subject to summary dismissal.[3]

         2. Habeas

         Even if, under a liberal construction, the Petition in this case is treated as a § 2241 action, it is subject to summary ...

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.