Rollins v. Bureau of Prisons
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: (1) Petitioner John Rollins's motion to amend his 28:2241 petition, D. E. No. 5 , is DENIED; (2) Rollins's 28:2241 petition, D. E. No. 2 , is DENIED; (3) This proceeding is DISMISSED; and (4) Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order in favor of Respondent, Warden David Berkebile. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 10/3/2011.(RCB)cc: COR, ROLLINS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION AT PIKEVILLE
JOHN ROLLINS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
V.
DAVID BERKEBILE, Warden,
Respondent.
**
**
**
No. 7:11-CV-00117-KKC
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
**
**
On July 20, 2011, Petitioner John Rollins, confined in the United States
Penitentiary-Big Sandy (“USP-Big Sandy”), in Inez, Kentucky, filed a pro se petition for
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [D. E. No. 2]. On August 19, 2011, he
filed a motion to amend his § 2241 petition. [D. E. No. 5]. Rollins has now paid the
$5.00 filing fee. [D. E. No. 9].
The Court screens the habeas petition to determine if Rollins is entitled to relief
under § 2241. See Rule 4, Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cases; (applicable to
§ 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. A district court may
summarily dismiss a § 2241 petition if it appears from its face that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Blevins v. Lamanna, 23 F. App’x 216, 218 (6th
Cir. 2001); Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970). Rollins’s habeas petition
will be denied because as explained below, he is not entitled to relief under § 2241.
ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION
Rollins challenges several conditions of his confinement at USP-Big Sandy. He
alleged that between May 2011 and July 2011, USP-Big Sandy staff members
repeatedly retaliated against him for filing a civil action in federal court in Indiana;
prevented him from engaging in recreational activities; refused to notarize his power-ofattorney documents; impaired access to his attorney by placing him (Rollins) in the
Special Housing Unit; and prevented him from calling his attorney to discuss his
pending Indiana federal civil action, despite the fact that his Unit Manager had
authorized him to call his attorney.
Rollins further alleged that USP-Big Sandy staff members have maliciously
prevented him, and other inmates, from filing administrative remedies, although Rollins
provided no details about this claim. He stated that he is attempting to administratively
exhaust his various claims, but in the interim, he seeks an Order: (1) directing USP-Big
Sandy officials to notarize his power-of-attorney documents; (2) directing USP-Big
Sandy officials to produce copies of any disciplinary actions taken against Correctional
Officer “Robinson;” (3) reprimanding USP-Big Sandy correctional officers who have
allegedly denied him recreational opportunities and prevented him from calling his
attorney; and (4) enjoining the USP-Big Sandy staff from harassing and retaliating
against him and other inmates.
DISCUSSION
A federal prisoner may file a § 2241 petition filed in the district where he is
incarcerated if he is challenging the execution of his sentence, i.e., the Bureau of
Prisons’ (“BOP”) calculation of sentence credits or other issues affecting the length of
his sentence. See United States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir. 2001)); see
2
also Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 755-56 (6th Cir. 1999). But Rollins is not
challenging the execution of his federal sentence; he is instead complaining about
specific conditions of his confinement at USP-Big Sandy and is seeking injunctive relief,
i.e., an Order reprimanding the various USP-Big Sandy officials and enjoining them
from engaging in future acts of harassment and retaliation.
Rollins can not challenge the conditions of his BOP confinement by filing a
petition seeking habeas relief under § 2241. See Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714
(6th Cir. 2004); Sullivan v. United States, 90 F. App’x 862, 863 (6th Cir. 2004). He must
assert those claims in a civil rights action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971), and pay the $350.00 filing fee. Rollins’s § 2241 petition will be denied, as will
his motion to amend his § 2241 petition to assert yet additional claims challenging the
conditions of his confinement at USP-Big Sandy. Prior to filing any Bivens action
asserting the condition of confinement claims raised in this action, Rollins must fully
complete the BOP’s three-step administrative remedy process set forth in 28 C.F.R. §§
542.10-19.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1)
Petitioner John Rollins’s motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition,
[D. E. No. 5], is DENIED;
(2)
Rollins’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, [D. E. No. 2], is DENIED;
(3)
This proceeding is DISMISSED; and
3
(4)
Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum
Opinion and Order in favor of the Respondent, Warden David Berkebile.
This 3rd day of October, 2011.
4
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?