Hopson v. Chambers-Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
PEYTON HOPSON, ) CASE NO. 5:25-cv-817
)
)
Petitioner, ) CHIEF JUDGE SARA LIOI
)
vs. )
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
ANNETTE CHAMBERS-SMITH, )
)
)
Respondent. )
At the request of the Sixth Circuit, the Court addresses the question of whether it would be
appropriate to issue Petitioner, Peyton Hopson, a certificate of appealability from the Court’s
August 15, 2025 decision denying his motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 8; see Doc. No. 7
(Motion).) The Court elects not to issue such a certificate.
On June 3, 2025, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Petitioner’s
application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 3 (MOO); Doc. No. 4
(Judgment Entry); see Doc. No. 1 (Petition).) In his petition, Petitioner alleged that Respondent
violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by denying
him a particular treatment for his Hepatitis C virus. (Doc. No. 3, at 1 (citing Doc. No. 1, at 5).) In
denying the petition, the Court determined that the claim was not cognizable in a habeas petition.
(Id. at 2.)
On July 10, 2025, Petitioner sought reconsideration of the Court’s decision, suggesting that
the Court failed to recognize “controlling precedent.” (Doc. No. 7, at 4–5 (citing Askew v.
Case: 5:25-cv-00817-SL Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/14/25 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
Caravajal, No. 21-5126, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35972 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 2021) (only LEXIS cite
available)). In denying reconsideration, the Court distinguished the unreported case cited by
Petitioner (as it had distinguished the reported decision of Wilson v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829, 838
(6th Cir. 2020) in its initial ruling), noting that by requesting release only in the event he was not
given the requested medical treatment, Petitioner acknowledged that other remedies short of
immediate release would address his alleged constitutional violation. Because Petitioner had
conceded that immediate release was not the only condition that would remedy his asserted
constitutional violation, this Court reaffirmed its determination that it lacked jurisdiction to
consider the matter. (Doc. No. 8, at 5–6.)
A habeas petitioner may not appeal the denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus
unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability and specifies the issues that can be raised on
appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (“A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant
has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”). The “petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282, 124 S. Ct. 2562, 159 L. Ed. 2d
384 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542
(2000)). The granting of a certificate of appealability does not require a showing that the appeal
would succeed on any claim. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154
L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003).
In this case, because Petitioner acknowledged that there was a remedy short of immediate
release that would remedy his asserted constitutional violation, it cannot be said that only
immediate release would provide Petitioner relief from his alleged violation of his constitutional
Case: 5:25-cv-00817-SL Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/14/25 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
rights. Under these circumstances, the law is clear that a conditions-of-confinement claim must be
brought—not as a federal habeas action—but as a civil rights action. See Luedtke v. Berkebile, 704
F.3d 465, 466 (6th Cir. 2013) (collecting cases). Hopson is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability because jurists of reason would not find debatable this Court’s decision that
Petitioner’s challenge to his conditions of confinement should be brought in a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than as a habeas action. See Rachal v. Quaterman,
265 F. App’x 373, 377 (5th Cir. 2008); see, e.g., Graham v. Floyd, No. 20-cv-12828, 2023 WL
273990, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 20203). Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate
of appealability, and further certifies that any appeal could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 14, 2025
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case: 5:25-cv-00817-SL Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/14/25 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>