Wisdom v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al.

Filing 9

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 1/12/2017 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed and that all pending motions ( 2 , 6 ) be denied as moot. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HEATH TYLER WISDOM,

12
13
14

No. 2:16-CV-0471-GEB-CMK

Plaintiff,
vs.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
et al.,

15
Defendants.
16
/
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending
before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

21

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

22

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

23

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

24

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

25

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), this court must dismiss an action if the

26

court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
1

1

As in a nearly identical prior action (see Wisdom v. Bureau of Prisons, 2:15-CV-

2

0218-AC-P, judgment entered January 8, 2016), plaintiff claims that the “changing of Plaintiff’s

3

history of violence category and score constituted a bill of attainder and deprivation of the equal

4

protection of the law in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.” As with the

5

prior action, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the current action. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 3625

6

“expressly strips this court of jurisdiction to review certain decisions made by BOP officials.”

7

Brown v. Holder, 770 F. Supp. 2d 363 (D.D.C 2011). “It is well settled that this exclusion

8

applies to cases in which federal inmates are challenging their security classifications and facility

9

designations.” Id. Nor can plaintiff proceed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the

10

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), because federal prisoners have no

11

constitutional or statutory right with respect to classification or place of confinement. See

12

Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976).

13
14

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed
and that all pending motions (Docs. 2 and 6) be denied as moot.

15

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

16

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

17

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

18

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

19

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.

20

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

21
22
23
24

DATED: January 12, 2017
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
2