Petelis v. Carroll County Superior Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Michael Petelis
v. 	Case No. 20-cv-879-SE
Warden, New Hampshire
State Prison for Men
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Michael Petelis, a prisoner at the New Hampshire
State Prison, has filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(Doc. Nos. 1, 5, 9).1 	He is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis. 	In his petition, Mr. Petelis challenges his February
27, 2013 guilty plea to, and conviction for, second-degree
murder, and the sentence imposed for that charge. 	The matter is
here for preliminary review to determine whether Mr. Petelis has
asserted facially valid claims to allow this matter to proceed.2
1 Mr. Petelis first filed a petition (Doc. No. 1), seeking
relief from his state conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a
statute that provides federal prisoners with an opportunity to
challenge their convictions and sentences. 	Mr. Petelis then
filed an addendum (Doc. No. 5) to his petition. 	Because Mr.
Petelis appeared to be challenging his state court conviction
and sentence, the Court sent him a blank 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition form, as § 2254 is the statute allowing a prisoner to
challenge a state court conviction in federal court. 	See Mar.
23, 2021 Order (Doc. No. 8). 	Mr. Petelis completed and filed
the form provided to him (Doc. No. 9). 	Mr. Petelis’s filings
(Doc. Nos. 1, 5, 9) are considered together as his § 2254
petition for all purposes.
2 In an Order issued simultaneously with this Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), the Court directs Mr. Petelis to file an
amended § 2254 petition or petition addendum, showing cause why
his petition should not be denied as untimely. 	In this R&R, the
Case 1:20-cv-00879-SE Document 10 Filed 07/18/22 Page 1 of 5

2
See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (Ҥ 2254
Rules”); LR 4.3(d)(4).3
Discussion
I. 	Conditions of Confinement Claims
In his petition, in addition to challenging his conviction
and sentence, Mr. Petelis challenges the conditions of his
confinement, stating that he has been at the NHSP’s Secure
Psychiatric Unit “for a long time,” indicating that he is not
receiving “real help” in that facility, and citing other
physical and mental health concerns. 	He also states that he has
experienced problems with sending and/or receiving mail since he
has been in prison, and that those problems may have prevented
him from litigating certain matters in court. 	Mr. Petelis seeks
money damages related to those issues.
Where a state prisoner challenges the legality or length of
his imprisonment, he must assert those issues in a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 	See
Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006). 	However, where a
prisoner challenges the circumstances of his confinement, which
Court addresses Mr. Petelis’s claims, asserted in his petitions,
seeking money damages.
3 The standard applied in conducting this preliminary review
is set forth in the Order issued simultaneously with this R&R.
Case 1:20-cv-00879-SE Document 10 Filed 07/18/22 Page 2 of 5

3
are unrelated to the substance of his habeas petition, those
claims, if brought in federal court, must be asserted in a civil
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	The Court generally “does not
have jurisdiction to consider such claims as part of a habeas
petition.” 	Kyricopoulos v. Murphy, No. 16-cv-12431-IT, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46643 at *4, 2017 WL 1190376, at *2 (D. Mass.
Mar. 29, 2017). 	The district judge, therefore, should dismiss
Mr. Petelis’s claims regarding the adequacy of his mental health
treatment, his physical and mental health, and interference with
his mail, as such claims are not properly litigated in this
habeas action. 	The claims should be dismissed without prejudice
to Mr. Petelis’s ability to assert them in a civil lawsuit
brought in state or federal court.
II. 	Compensation for Wrongful Imprisonment
Mr. Petelis seeks money damages to compensate him for being
“locked up for 10 years for something I didn’t do,” and “being
in prison for no reason.” 	Apr. 4, 2021 Am. Pet. (Doc. No. 9, at
5). 	Among other reasons for seeking this relief, Mr. Petelis
seeks compensation because, he states, he did not commit the
second-degree murder for which he is presently incarcerated, and
that the police in his criminal case misrepresented certain
evidence which made it falsely appear that he had confessed to a
crime he didn’t commit.
Case 1:20-cv-00879-SE Document 10 Filed 07/18/22 Page 3 of 5

4
Mr. Petelis’s claims seeking damages for wrongful
imprisonment, are not appropriately addressed in this habeas
action to the extent he seeks monetary compensation for his time
in prison, as opposed to release from incarceration. 	See
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 392 (2007) (civil suits are not
appropriate way to challenge the validity of an outstanding
criminal judgment) (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486
(1994)). 	The Court further notes that even if Mr. Petelis’s
claims for money damages to compensate him for the time he spent
in prison had been brought in a civil lawsuit under § 1983 in
this court, such claims are only actionable where the conviction
and/or sentence in question has already been reversed or found
to be unconstitutional.
[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for
other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would
render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983
plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence
has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by
executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
authorized to make such determination, or called into
question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages
bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence
that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable
under § 1983.
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. 	In other words, unless and until Mr.
Petelis’s conviction and sentence are invalidated, he may not
seek damages for claims challenging the legality of his
conviction or sentence.
Case 1:20-cv-00879-SE Document 10 Filed 07/18/22 Page 4 of 5

5
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the District Judge should dismiss all
of the claims for damages asserted in Mr. Petelis’s 28 U.S.C. §
2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. Nos. 1, 5, 9),
without prejudice to his ability to pursue such claims, as
appropriate, in state or federal court. 	Any objections to this
Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of
receipt of this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The
fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion.
Failure to file any objection within the specified time
waives the right to appeal the district court’s Order. 	See
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir.
2016). 	Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this
Report and Recommendation “‘are subject to review in the
district court.’” 	Id. 	Additionally, any issues “‘not preserved
by such objection are precluded on appeal.’” 	Id. (citations
omitted).
________________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
July 18, 2022
cc: 	Michael Petelis, pro se
Case 1:20-cv-00879-SE Document 10 Filed 07/18/22 Page 5 of 5