ELLIOTT v. WARDEN OF USP TERRE HAUTE, IN. ET AL

Filing 6

ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by JULIUS ELLIOTT, JR. The petition is summarily denied insofar as he challenges the conditions of his confinement. This disposition does not preclude any other appropriate remedy he may have to pursue such a challenge. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claim dismissed in this Entry. In relation to the petitioner challenging the validity of his conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Easte rn District of Pensylvania, the petitioner shall have through March 21, 2012, in which to show cause why this action can proceed under § 2241 or why, in the alternative, it should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Copy to petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/2/2012.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
JULIUS ELLIOTT, JR.,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN OF USP
TERRE HAUTE, IN.,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-07-JMS-DKL

Entry and Order
I.
Habeas petitioner Julius Elliott, Jr. is confined in this district and seeks a
writ of habeas corpus based on part on his challenge to the conditions of his
confinement. Habeas corpus review is available only Awhere the deprivation of
rights is such that it necessarily impacts the fact or length of detention,@ Leamer v.
Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002), meaning, in part, that a challenge to the
conditions of confinement may not be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241.
Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1991); Falcon v. U.S. Bureau of
Prisons, 52 F.3d 137, 138-39 (7th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, Elliott’s habeas petition is summarily denied insofar as he
challenges the conditions of his confinement. This disposition does not preclude any
other appropriate remedy he may have to pursue such a challenge.
No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claim dismissed in
this Entry.
II.
Elliott also seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
He challenges the validity of his conviction entered in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The petitioner may have an uphill path to travel in demonstrating that a
remedy via § 2241(c)(3) should be available to him. And it is his burden to show that
such a remedy is the proper one. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.
2001); Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir. 1999).
A writ of habeas corpus via § 2241 may be utilized by a federal prisoner to
challenge the legality of his or her conviction or sentence in those cases where
§ 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the] detention.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(e). A remedy via § 2255 is "inadequate" when its provisions limiting multiple
§ 2255 motions prevent a prisoner from obtaining review of a legal theory that
"establishes the petitioner's actual innocence." Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832, 835
(7th Cir. 2002).
On the basis of the foregoing, therefore, the petitioner shall have through
March 21, 2012, in which to show cause why this action can proceed under § 2241
or why, in the alternative, it should not be transferred to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

02/02/2012
Date: _____________________
Distribution:
Julius Elliott, Jr.
09054-158

United States Penitentiary
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana