Henderson v. Warden et al

Filing 16

ORDER finding as moot 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 3 Motion for Order; denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 13 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/17/2017. (Williams, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JAMES HENDERSON,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
WARDEN, ET AL.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-1958 (VAB)

RULING AND ORDER
Mr. Henderson brings this habeas petition pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has also
filed a motion for consideration of denial of due process in support of the petition, a motion for
reconsideration and a motion to compel.
I.

Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 9]
On December 8, 2016, the Court denied Mr. Henderson’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis because he stated that he had $21.00 in cash. Mr. Henderson claims that he has no
money in his inmate account and that there is no money left on his debit card. He seeks
reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis. Mr.
Henderson has pointed to no information that the Court overlooked in denying the application.
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration of denial of Mr. Henderson’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis is denied.
The Court notes that in the motion to compel filed by Mr. Henderson, he asserts that
money has been deposited to his prisoner account and he will be forwarding the filing fee of
$5.00 to the Court soon. See Mot. Compel, ECF No. 13 at 2-3.

II.

Motion to Compel [ECF No. 13]
Mr. Henderson seeks an order directing the respondents to produce a disciplinary

hearing/investigation file containing paperwork with regard to an allegation that he was guilty of
fighting with another inmate on October 1, 2016. Mr. Henderson claims that the disciplinary
infraction was the reason prison authorities brought him back to FCI Danbury after his release on
November 15, 2016. Mr. Henderson does not allege that he made any attempt to seek the
production of the disciplinary hearing/investigation file from the respondents prior to filing the
motion to compel. Thus, the motion to compel is premature. Furthermore, the relief sought is
moot, given that prison officials have transferred Mr. Henderson to a half-way house.
Mr. Henderson also seeks to have the Court take notice of other alleged violations of his
civil rights, including Danbury FCI officials’ alleged failure to schedule him for hernia surgery
in September 2016, their alleged refusal to x-ray his right hip in January 2017, and their alleged
confiscation of twenty pages of one of his legal files. Mr. Henderson contends that prison
officials also may have deprived him of employment with a company in Toledo, Ohio because he
could not follow-up on a phone call he made to the company on November 15, 2016.
To the extent that Mr. Henderson seeks to add these allegations to his habeas petition, the
request is denied. A prisoner must exhaust his or her administrative remedies before filing a
section 2241 petition. See United States v. Smalling, 644 F. App’x 3, 4-5 (2d Cir. 2016)
(challenge to execution of sentence must be brought in a section 2241 proceeding, but only “after
exhaustion of administrative remedies”) (citations omitted). Mr. Henderson does not allege that
he exhausted his administrative remedies as to any of the claims prior to asserting them in his
motion to compel. The motion to compel is denied in all respects.
2

III.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Consideration [ECF Nos. 1, 3]
The petitioner asserts that the respondents violated his constitutional right to due process

when they released him from FCI Danbury on November 15, 2016, to travel by bus to a half-way
house in Ohio, and then picked him up at the bus station in New York City before he could board
the bus to Ohio. He seeks an order of immediate release to a half-way house.
On December 23, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause directing the
respondents to file a response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus, motion for consideration
of denial of due process and supplemental notices. On February 13, 2017, the respondents filed
a document indicating that prison officials had transferred Mr. Henderson to a half-way house in
Toledo, Ohio on February 7, 2017. In view of the fact that Mr. Henderson has been discharged
from Danbury Correctional Institution to a halfway house in Ohio, the relief sought in the
petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for motion for consideration of denial of due
process is now moot.
IV.

Conclusion
The Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 9] is DENIED and the Motion to Compel

[ECF Nos. 13] is DENIED in all respects. The Motion for Consideration of Denial of Due
Process [ECF No. 3] and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] are DENIED as
moot.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.

3

SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 17th day of February, 2017.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4