Opinion
C/A 8:20-cv-3668-MGL-JDA
06-15-2021
Robert Chucku White, Petitioner, v. Warden Phelps, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Jacquelyn D. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
Robert Chucku White (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, brings this action purportedly under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and, at the time he filed this action, was incarcerated at the Edgefield Federal Correctional Institution in South Carolina. [Doc. 1-5 at 1.] Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the undersigned Magistrate Judge is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Judge. For the reasons below, the undersigned finds that this action is subject to summary dismissal.
The undersigned notes that Petitioner has advised the Court that he is scheduled to be transferred to the Terminal Island Federal Correctional Institution in California. [Doc. 11 at 1.] According to the BOP's Inmate Locator, Petitioner is presently incarcerated at the Atlanta United States Penitentiary. See BOP Inmate Locator, available at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (search by BOP register number “20225-424”) (last visited Nov. 30, 2020). At this time, however, Petitioner has not provided the Court with an updated address, as required by this Court's Order dated October 22, 2020. [Doc. 5 at 5.] Accordingly, this Report and Recommendation will be mailed to the address on file with the Court.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner commenced this action by filing a hand-written document styled as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. 1.] Upon review of that document, the undersigned concluded that Petitioner's allegations appeared to be related to the conditions of his confinement. As such, the undersigned notified Petitioner that it was unclear to the Court whether he intended to assert a habeas claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or a civil rights claim pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (a “Bivens claim”). [Doc. 1 at 5.] The Court directed Petitioner to advise the Court as to how he intended to proceed in this action:
In responding to this Order, Petitioner must advise the Court whether he intends to proceed in this action under the habeas statute or under Bivens. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide Petitioner with a blank standard court form for a Petition under § 2241 and a blank standard complaint form for a Bivens claim. Petitioner must fully complete and return the proper form to the Court.[Id.] In response to the Court's Order, Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to § 2241 on the standard court form. [Doc. 1-5.] As such, the Court concludes that Petitioner intends to proceed with this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and not under Bivens. The Court construes the original, hand-written document [Doc. 1] and the petition on the standard court form [Doc. 1-5] together as the Petition in this matter. Additionally, the Court has carefully reviewed the supporting documents that Petitioner has filed in this case. [Docs. 1-1; 1-3; 1-7; 10; 10-1.]
Petitioner was sentenced in 2003 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [Doc. 1-5 at 1.] Petitioner purports to challenge certain prison conditions and his “physical confinement” in this action. [Id. at 2.] Specifically, Petitioner seeks to challenge a “sexual predation code” that was placed on his record by the prison psychology department on December 19, 2019. [Id.] Petitioner claims the sexual predation code was placed on his record without notice to him, without him having committing a prohibited act, and without an SIS investigation. [Id. at 6.] Petitioner claims that he was never offered sex offender treatment and that he is being forced to live in cells with other inmates with whom he is not compatible. [Id.] Petitioner contends the code was entered on his record in retaliation for his cooperation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation against white supremacy groups and BOP staff. [Id.] Petitioner requested to be placed in a cell with an LGBT inmate, but the psychology department is using the sex code as a weapon without properly following BOP procedures. [Id.] Petitioner contends Dr. Bryan has refused to remove the code because of a prior relationship Petitioner had with another transgender inmate. [Id.] However, Petitioner contends that relationship does not merit a sex predation code. [Id.]
Petitioner asserts the following grounds for relief. First, Petitioner contends the sex predation code violates his rights because it was placed on his record without notice, without him having committed a prohibited act, and without an SIS investigation, causing him to be forced into cells with other inmates with whom he is not compatible. [Id. at 6.] Second, Petitioner requests to be placed into cells with inmates in the LGBT community and contends the psychology department is improperly using the sex predation code as a weapon against him. [Id.] Third, Petitioner contends Dr. Bryan has permitted other transgender inmates to live in cells together. [Id.] For his relief, Petitioner asks that the Court order the psychology department to expunge the sex predation code and enter an injunction prohibiting the psychology department from violating his constitutional rights and allow him to be housed with transgender and/or LGBT inmates. [Id. at 7.]
APPLICABLE LAW
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se pleadings pursuant to the procedural provisions of 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).
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; see also Rule 1(b) Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (2012) (explaining that a district court may apply these rules to a habeas corpus petition not filed pursuant to § 2254). 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, however, the Petition is subject to summary dismissal.
DISCUSSION
As noted, the Court concludes that Petitioner intends to proceed with this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner requests a writ of habeas corpus and seeks injunctive relief related to the sex predation code that was placed on his record. However, although he asserts his claims pursuant to § 2241, Petitioner's allegations all relate to the conditions of his confinement, and thus are not cognizable in a habeas petition. Thus, as explained below, Petitioner cannot obtain the relief he seeks through this habeas petition, and his claims should be pursued, if at all, through a civil rights complaint.
District courts are authorized to grant writs of habeas corpus “within their respective jurisdictions.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A § 2241 habeas action generally challenges the execution or implementation of a federal prisoner's sentence, such as the BOP's administration of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, computation of sentence, prison disciplinary actions, and prison transfers. Roudabush v. Warden FCI Edgefield, No. 8:18-cv-1818-BHH-JDA, 2018 WL 3979858, at *2 (D.S.C. July 18, 2018), Report and Recommendation adopted by 2018 WL 3972257 (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 2018), aff'd, 749 Fed.Appx. 194 (4th Cir. 2019); see also Anderson v. Pettiford, No. 8:07-cv-943-CMC, 2007 WL 1577673, at *3 (D.S.C. May 31, 2007) (noting that examples of an appropriate use of § 2241 include “actions challenging the computation of parole, computation of good time or jail credits, prison disciplinary actions, or imprisonment beyond the expiration of a sentence”) (internal citations omitted), aff'd, 241 Fed.Appx. 934 (4th Cir. 2007). Thus, although inmates may file § 2241 petitions to attack the fact or length of their confinement, such petitions generally may not be used to contest the conditions of that confinement. See Preiser v. Rodgriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973). Therefore, to determine whether § 2241 is the appropriate action under which to pursue the claims asserted in this case, the Court must determine whether Petitioner challenges the fact or duration of his confinement or the conditions of his confinement. Stamper v. Adams, No. 1:20-cv-200, 2020 WL 5471507, at *2 (N.D. W.Va. Aug. 18, 2020), Report and Recommendation adopted by 2020 WL 5441232 (N.D. W.Va. Sept. 10, 2020).
The instant action is properly characterized as a civil suit for an injunction against federal officials for a constitutional violation and fails to allege a valid factual basis for a § 2241 petition because Petitioner appears to challenge his custody classification. Specifically, Petitioner seeks to have his sex predation code removed and asks to be housed with other transgender inmates or members of the LGBT community. These claims do not impact the fact or duration of Petitioner's confinement and instead relate solely to the conditions of his confinement. Thus, Petitioner's claims are subject to dismissal for failure to state a cognizable claim and without prejudice to Petitioner's right to file a Bivens action relating to his claims. Meeks v. Mitchell, No. 6:10-cv-1346-RMG-KFM, 2010 WL 4340442, at *3 (D.S.C. Aug. 30, 2010), Report and Recommendation adopted by 2010 WL 4320505 (D.S.C. Oct. 26, 2010), aff'd, 430 Fed.Appx. 219 (4th Cir. 2011) (dismissing habeas petition without prejudice, finding the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under § 2241 to consider petitioner's prison-condition claims). Simply put, Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2241, and the Petition is therefore subject to summary dismissal.
Even assuming that Petitioner's claims were properly brought under § 2241, they would be subject to dismissal on the merits. Congress has delegated decisions regarding inmate custody classification and placement in BOP programs and facilities to the full discretion of federal prison officials. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 217 (1976). Moreover, Petitioner has no protected constitutional interest in being housed in a particular institution, at a particular custody level, or in a particular unit of a correctional institution. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250-51 (1983). Accordingly, even presuming Petitioner could bring his claims in a habeas proceeding, he seeks relief that this Court cannot grant and the instant Petition would subject to summary dismissal on the merits. See Freeman v. Phelps, No. 6:20-cv-1067-RMG-KFM, 2020 WL 4678959, at *2 (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2020), Report and Recommendation adopted by 2020 WL 2097666 (D.S.C. May 1, 2020)
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is recommended that the § 2241 Petition be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to file an answer or return.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Petitioner's attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
300 East Washington Street, Room 239
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).