(HC) Dugger v. Brewer

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 1/13/2023 ORDERING that Petitioner may file an amended 2241 petition within 30 days of this order's entry. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send petitioner a federal 2241 habeas form with this order. (Huang, H)

Case 2:22-cv-02142-JDP Document 4 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY DUGGER,

12
13
14

Petitioner,

ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION
DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE
SECTION 2241 CLAIM AND GRANTING
LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS

Respondent.

ECF No. 1

v.
D. BREWER,

15

Case No. 2:22-cv-02142-JDP (HC)

16
17

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus

18

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. After reviewing the petition, I find that it fails to state a viable claim. I

19

will give petitioner a chance to amend before recommending that this action be dismissed.

20

The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

21

Section 2254 Cases.1 Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine

22

the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the

23

petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019);

24

Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).

25

Petitioner’s sole claim is that three points were unlawfully added to his custody

26

classification. ECF No. 1 at 3. Claims related solely to an inmate’s Bureau of Prisons custody

27
28

1

This rule may be applied to petitions brought under § 2241. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases.
1

Case 2:22-cv-02142-JDP Document 4 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
1

classification are not cognizable by way of a § 2241 action, however. See, e.g., Strausbaugh v.

2

Shartle, CV-15-398-TUC-JAS (JR), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55900, *9 (D. Ariz. April 11, 2017)

3

(“Claims that merely challenge a petitioner’s classification by the BOP without potentially

4

shortening the petitioner’s sentence are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition.”); Parada v.

5

Martinez, No. CV 19-4405 JAK (MRW), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163574, *4-5 (C.D. Cal. Sept.

6

24, 2019) (“[T]he Court cannot adjudicate Petitioner's contention that the BOP has misclassified

7

him for prison housing or program purposes. A challenge to the conditions of his confinement

8

rather than the legality of his confinement [ ] is not cognizable on habeas corpus review.”)

9

(internal quotation marks omitted). The matter might be different if this classification were

10

potentially to impact the length of petitioner’s sentence, but the petition does not, as best as I can

11

tell, indicate that this is the case.

12
13

Petitioner may, if he chooses, file an amended petition that addresses this deficiency. If
he does not, I will recommend that this action be dismissed.

14

It is ORDERED that:

15

1.

Petitioner may file an amended § 2241 petition within thirty days of this order’s

16

entry. If he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons

17

stated in this order.

18

2.

19

this order.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal § 2241 habeas form with

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
Dated:
23
24

January 13, 2023
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2