Filed: Feb. 02, 2021
Latest Update: Feb. 03, 2021
Case: 20-20263 Document: 00515730526 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 2, 2021
No. 20-20263 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Skyler Thomas Rice,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
v.
Ed Gonzalez, Sheriff of Harris County,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CV-1354
Before Jones, Smith, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Edith H. Jones, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Rice, a detainee in the Harris County, Texas, jail awaiting
trial, filed what he described as a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking
release from pretrial custody because, he contended, no conditions at the jail
were sufficient to protect his constitutional rights in the midst of the COVID-
19 crisis. Some confusion ensued when his petition and a separate
memorandum in support of either “a writ of habeas corpus or an injunction”
were mishandled in the clerk’s office. Ultimately, the district court denied
relief regardless whether the petition was brought under federal habeas law,
28 U.S.C. § 2241, or civil rights law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rice has appealed,
insisting that his petition sounds in habeas. He contends that he should be
1
Case: 20-20263 Document: 00515730526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2021
No. 20-20263
released from custody because, given health problems including asthma and
hypertension, he is at a high risk for contracting the virus, yet jail conditions
make it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to practice proper hygiene and
social distancing. 1
We affirm the denial of relief on the following basis. We construe
Rice’s petition, at his behest, as seeking habeas relief, and thus have
jurisdiction over the case. But we also conclude that the Great Writ does not,
in this circuit, afford release for prisoners held in state custody due to adverse
conditions of confinement. Rice has not stated a claim for relief. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6).
In Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935-36 (5th Cir. 1976), this
court held that, “[s]imply stated, habeas is not available to review questions
unrelated to the cause of detention. Its sole function is to grant relief from
unlawful imprisonment or custody and it cannot be used properly for any
other purpose.” See generally Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 500,
93 S. Ct.
1827, 1841 (1973) (“[W]e hold today that when a state prisoner is challenging
the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks
is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier
release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas
corpus.”). As we noted in Carson v. Johnson, “[i]f ‘a favorable determination
. . . would not automatically entitle [the prisoner] to accelerated release,’ . . .
the proper vehicle is a § 1983 suit.”
112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1997)
(quoting Orellana v. Kyle,
65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)). Both
Carson and Orellana dealt with parole procedures that, if modified by the
courts, would enhance a prisoner’s eligibility for release but not compel that
result. Similarly, that Rice might more likely be exposed to COVID-19 during
1
In fact, a few months after filing this petition, Rice contracted COVID-19, and he
survived.
2
Case: 20-20263 Document: 00515730526 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/02/2021
No. 20-20263
confinement, and that he may have certain common underlying health
conditions, taken together do not impugn the underlying legal basis for the
fact or duration of his confinement. Rice seeks an extension of federal habeas
corpus law that this court is not authorized to grant. 2 AFFIRMED.
2
At least one other circuit court has held in a published opinion that Section 2241
provides jurisdiction and potential relief for federal prisoners to seek COVID-related
release from custody. Wilson v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829, 837-39 (6th Cir. 2020). But this
circuit’s precedential, published case law is otherwise. In any event, COVID-19 relief
claims in this circuit have been handled pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Valentine v. Collier,
956 F.3d 797 (5th Cir. 2020) (Valentine I); Valentine v. Collier,
978 F.3d 154 (5th Cir. 2020)
(Valentine II); Marlowe v. LeBlanc, 810 Fed. App’x 302 (5th Cir. 2020).
3
