Wisdom v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al.
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HEATH TYLER WISDOM,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
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
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), this court must dismiss an action if the
court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
As in a nearly identical prior action (see Wisdom v. Bureau of Prisons, 2:15-CV-
0218-AC-P, judgment entered January 8, 2016), plaintiff claims that the “changing of Plaintiff’s
history of violence category and score constituted a bill of attainder and deprivation of the equal
protection of the law in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.” As with the
prior action, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the current action. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 3625
“expressly strips this court of jurisdiction to review certain decisions made by BOP officials.”
Brown v. Holder, 770 F. Supp. 2d 363 (D.D.C 2011). “It is well settled that this exclusion
applies to cases in which federal inmates are challenging their security classifications and facility
designations.” Id. Nor can plaintiff proceed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), because federal prisoners have no
constitutional or statutory right with respect to classification or place of confinement. See
Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976).
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.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
DATED: January 12, 2017
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?