Steven Johnson v. Warden Lewisburg USP

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: AMBRO, GREENAWAY JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. BLD-287

Case: 16-4253

Document: 003112693465

Page: 1

BLD-287

Date Filed: 08/04/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-4253
___________
STEVEN A. JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN LEWISBURG USP
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. Pa. No. 1-16-cv-02168)
District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 22, 2017
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 4, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-4253

Document: 003112693465

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/04/2017

PER CURIAM
Steven Johnson, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Johnson, a federal prisoner, alleged in his habeas petition that he was transferred
to the Special Management Unit at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg,
Pennsylvania, but that his custody level classification does not match the custody level of
this prison. He stated that he was given a medium custody classification, which is
“below USP custody and well below that of a SMU.” Petition at 8. He also alleged that
he was transferred in retaliation for filing a motion in federal court against his former
institution. As relief, he sought a “correct custody classification” and a transfer to a
prison that matches his custody level. Petition at 9.
The District Court ruled that Johnson’s claim is not cognizable under § 2241 and
dismissed his petition. This appeal followed.1
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our standard of review is de
novo. Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533, 535 (3d Cir. 2012).
Johnson was transferred to another institution after the District Court issued its
decision. To the extent he seeks relief related to his confinement in the SMU at the
United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, his appeal is moot. To the extent Johnson seeks

The District Court denied Johnson’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. That order
is not before us.
1

2

Case: 16-4253

Document: 003112693465

Page: 3

Date Filed: 08/04/2017

relief related to his current custody classification, we agree with the District Court that
his claim is not cognizable under § 2241. Johnson’s claim does not concern the
execution of his sentence, as directed in his sentencing judgment, nor does he contend
that success on his claim would necessarily result in a change to the duration of his
sentence. See Cardona, 681 F.3d at 537 (affirming dismissal of § 2241 petition claiming
improper referral to SMU).
Johnson argues in support of his appeal that his claim regarding his placement in
the SMU is cognizable under Jones v. Zenk, 495 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (N.D. Ga. 2007),
where the district court ruled that a challenge to a Federal Bureau of Prisons regulation
limiting the placement of inmates in home confinement could be brought under
§ 2241. Jones noted our decision in Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235
(3d Cir. 2005), which allowed a similar challenge. Cardona, however, explained that the
claim in Woodall concerned the execution of the prisoner’s sentence and was cognizable
under § 2241 because the challenged conduct conflicted with statements in the prisoner’s
sentencing judgment. Cardona, 681 F.3d at 536-37. That is not the case here.
Because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the judgment of the District Court.

3