United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Robert
Frene, pro se
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Andrea
K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge
Before
the court is Robert Frene's petition for a writ of habeas
corpus (Doc. No. 1), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
2241 & 2254, and addenda (Doc. Nos. 4, 7, 10, 11, 17,
19-22) to that petition. The petition and addenda are before
the court for preliminary review to determine whether the
petition is facially valid and may proceed. See Rule
4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases ("§
2254 Rules"); § 2254 Rule 1(b) (authorizing court
to apply § 2254 Rules to § 2241 petitions); LR
4.3(d)(4)(A); see also McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S.
849, 856 (1994) ("Federal courts are authorized to
dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally
insufficient on its face."). Also before the court are
Frene's seven motions for preliminary injunctive relief
(Doc. Nos. 5, 12-16, 18), which have been referred to this
magistrate judge for a report and recommendation as to
disposition. See Jan. 11, 2017 Order; Feb. 3, 2017
Order; May 9, 2017 Order; May 31, 2017 Order; June 9, 2017
Order; June 15, 2017 Order.[1]
Background
When
Frene filed his initial pleading (Doc. No. 1) in this matter,
the court identified the filing as a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as it appeared
that Frene was primarily challenging the constitutionality of
his pretrial detention at the Belknap County House of
Corrections. Frene then filed two documents (Doc. Nos. 4, 7),
which the court treated as addenda to Frene's § 2241
petition, and a motion for preliminary injunctive relief
(Doc. No. 5), which also contained allegations and claims not
asserted in the original petition.
Frene's
filings assert claims alleging violations of his federal
rights by named and unnamed defendants. Frene has challenged,
among other things: the validity of a number of arrests,
prosecutions, and convictions, to which he has been subjected
since 1997; the constitutionality of unspecified state motor
vehicle laws and state court actions restricting and/or
regulating his right to travel; the fact of his detention at
various jails or other facilities; the conditions of his
confinement at those facilities; and other conduct of named
and unnamed police officers, judges, and state officials that
he alleges has violated his rights.
On
February 3, 2017, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued an
Order (Doc. No. 9) ("February 3 Order") directing
Frene to clarify: whether he is seeking release from current
custody, by way of a habeas action; or whether he seeks
damages and/or injunctive relief in a civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the February 3 Order, the
court specifically directed Frene to provide this court with
a narrative statement of the facts underlying his claims; the
identity of the defendants as to each of the claims he has
asserted; the status of his state criminal or administrative
proceedings; and clarification regarding his custody status.
Frene has not responded to the February 3 Order in a manner
that sheds light on any of those issues.
Discussion
I. Nature of Case
The
court directed Frene to advise the court whether he intended
to pursue this matter as a habeas action or as a civil rights
action. Frene has failed to comply with the court's
directive to identify his action as either a habeas petition
or a civil rights action and continues to assert his claims
in habeas and under § 1983. The court, based on
Frene's initial filing in this matter, identified this
case as a habeas action. Frene has neither objected to that
designation nor asked that it be changed. The court will
therefore continue to construe this matter as a habeas corpus
petition and subjects it to review pursuant to § 2254
Rule 4.
II.
Non-Habeas Claims
A.
Damages
In his
filings, Frene seeks monetary damages for numerous alleged
violations of his rights under state and federal law.
"[H]abeas corpus is not an appropriate or available
remedy" for a damages cla im. Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973). Accordingly,
Frene's claims for money damages should be dismissed from
this case without prejudice to Frene's ability to assert
such claims in a civil rights action seeking such relief.
B.
Inju ...