CUMBERLANDER v. OLIVER
Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - The habeas petition shows on its face that he is not entitled to the relief he seeks. Judgment dismissing this action without prejudice shall now issue. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/11/2013.(RSF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
JOHN C. OLIVER, Warden,
Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears
legally insufficient on its face.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). This is an
appropriate case for such a disposition. This conclusion is compelled by the following facts and
Daydren Cumberlander is confined at a federal prison in this District and seeks
habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241(c)(3) based on his contention that the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has improperly retained him in a prison rather than a communitybased halfway house.
The pivotal point for the present is determining what remedy is authorized and
appropriate for Cumberlander’s challenge. As noted in Jasperson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
460 F.Supp.2d 76, 81 (D.D.C. 2006), the Seventh Circuit has held that habeas is not an available
remedy in this context, but rather that prisoners must bring civil actions utilizing the
Administrative Procedures Act. This was determined in Richmond v. Scibana, 387 F.3d 602 (7th
Cir. 2004), and is fatal to Cumberlander’s claim here.
Cumberlander’s habeas petition shows on its face that he is not entitled to the
relief he seeks. Judgment dismissing this action without prejudice shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States Penitentiary
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
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?