Bonaparte v. Kelly et al

Filing 5

OMNIBUS OPINION and ORDER: Summarily Dismissing Case; Denying a Certificate of Appealability; Denying in Forma Pauperis on Appeal; Finding as Moot Emergency 4 MOTION to Expedite Proceedings. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPar)

Case 2:21-cv-12308-SJM-PTM ECF No. 5, PageID.17 Filed 12/08/21 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GREGORY BONAPARTE,

Case No. 2:21-cv-12308

Petitioner,

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

v.
KELLY, et al.,
Respondents.

/

OMNIBUS OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Gregory Bonaparte—confined at the St. Clair County Jail in Port
Huron, Michigan—filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. ECF 1. The Court will summarily dismiss the petition without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a federal prisoner who was housed at the Cherry Health
Community Treatment Center in Detroit, Michigan as part of his re-entry into
society. Id. at 1–2. Petitioner alleges that he filed a grievance against treatment
center personnel for assigning several white prisoners bed spaces around him and for
refusing to move him to another bed space. Id. at 2. Petitioner claims that his
grievance was denied. Id. at 3. A few days later, he accidentally spilled water on two
white residents in the hallway. Id. While the three residents tried to resolve the
incident, a staff member from the residential treatment center approached them. Id.
Petitioner informed the staff member that there was not a problem. Id. Later that
day, a staff member approached Petitioner while he was sitting on his bed and told
1

Case 2:21-cv-12308-SJM-PTM ECF No. 5, PageID.18 Filed 12/08/21 Page 2 of 7

him that the Director of the treatment center decided to remove Petitioner from the
center. Id. Petitioner was moved to the St. Clair County Jail, where he is now
confined. Id. at 4.
Petitioner claims that treatment center staff violated his due process rights by
failing to provide him notice and to conduct a hearing on the matter before
transferring him to the county jail. Id. at 5–6. At the county jail, he has allegedly
endured religious discrimination because jail staff confiscated his Rastafarian
headwear. Id. at 4. Petitioner seeks to be released to home confinement. Id. at 7.
LEGAL STANDARD
After a habeas petition is filed, the Court must promptly undertake a
preliminary review of the petition to determine whether "it plainly appears from the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If, after preliminary consideration, the
Court determines that a petitioner has no right to relief, the Court must summarily
dismiss the petition. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts; see also Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (stating
that, under § 2243, the district court has "a duty to screen out" petitions that lack
merit on their face). Dismissal is warranted under Rule 4 if, on the face of the petition
and any attached exhibits, the petition appears to be legally insufficient or shows that
the petitioner has no right to federal habeas relief. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S.
849, 856 (1994); Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1999).

2

Case 2:21-cv-12308-SJM-PTM ECF No. 5, PageID.19 Filed 12/08/21 Page 3 of 7

A district court can summarily dismiss, under Rule 4, facially insufficient
habeas petitions brought under § 2241. See, e.g., Perez v. Hemingway, 157 F. Supp.
2d 790, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (Borman, J.) (additional citations omitted); see also
Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
DISCUSSION
The Court will summarily dismiss the petition because the petition is facially
insufficient. Id. The Bureau of Prisons, not the judiciary, "is responsible for
designating the place of a prisoner's imprisonment." United States v. Townsend, 631
F. App'x 373, 378 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)). A petitioner "enjoys no
statutory or constitutionally protected right, or entitlement, to transfer to . . . home
confinement." Heard v. Quintana, 184 F. Supp. 3d 515, 521 (E.D. Ky. 2016) (emphasis
omitted). Petitioner therefore, on the face of his habeas petition, has no right to home
confinement. Id.; see also Bey v. Terris, No. 19-12120, 2020 WL 6060486, at *4 (E.D.
Mich. Oct. 14, 2020) (Edmunds, J.).
Nor does a prisoner have a constitutional right to placement in a particular
prison or jail or to have a certain security classification. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461
U.S. 238, 245 (1983); Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976) ("The [Due
Process] Clause does not require hearings in connection with transfers whether or
not they are the result of the inmate's misbehavior or may be labeled as disciplinary
or punitive."); Beard v. Livesay, 798 F.2d 874, 876 (6th Cir. 1986) (stating that
prisoners do not have an inherent constitutional right "to enjoy a particular security
classification."). Petitioner therefore has no clearly established constitutional right to

3

Case 2:21-cv-12308-SJM-PTM ECF No. 5, PageID.20 Filed 12/08/21 Page 4 of 7

placement in a residential re-entry center, a halfway house, or any particular place
of confinement. See Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 576 (6th Cir. 2005) (stating
that an inmate's designation as a security threat group leader, which caused him to
be excluded from community placement and receive visitor restrictions, without a
hearing, did not violate the inmate's equal protection or due process rights); Nunez v.
FCI Elkton, 32 F. App'x 724, 725 (6th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (stating that a prisoner
failed to state a claim for a due process violation when he was transferred and denied
eligibility for placement in a halfway house).
And if Petitioner were to allege religious discrimination by jail officials, the
claim is non-cognizable in a habeas petition. When a prisoner is challenging the very
fact or duration of his physical imprisonment and the relief that he seeks is a
determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that
imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). But "habeas corpus is not available to
prisoners who are complaining only of mistreatment during their legal incarceration."
Lutz v. Hemingway, 476 F. Supp. 2d 715, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2007) (Lawson, J.) (citation
omitted). Such complaints "do not relate to the legality of the petitioner's
confinement, nor do they relate to the legal sufficiency of the criminal court
proceedings which resulted in the incarceration of the petitioner." Id. (quoting
Maddux v. Rose, 483 F. Supp. 661, 672 (E.D. Tenn. 1980)). Instead, an inmate should
bring a claim that challenges the conditions of confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Id. (citing Austin v. Bell, 927 F. Supp. 1058, 1066 (M.D. Tenn. 1996)). Petitioner's

4

Case 2:21-cv-12308-SJM-PTM ECF No. 5, PageID.21 Filed 12/08/21 Page 5 of 7

challenge to the conditions of his confinement "fall[s] outside of the cognizable core of
habeas corpus relief." Hodges v. Bell, 170 F. App'x 389, 393 (6th Cir. 2006).
Petitioner's claim that jail officials have discriminated against him based on his
religious practices does not implicate the length or duration of his sentence and thus
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate avenue for obtaining
relief. See Williams-Bey v. Buss, 263 F. App'x 523, 524 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Smith
v. Ludwick, No. 1-CV-10668, 2010 WL 1780960, *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2010)
(Murphy, J.). Because Petitioner's pro se habeas petition is a subject more
appropriately reached under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court will dismiss the petition
without prejudice and allow Petitioner to raise potential civil rights claims properly
under that statute. See Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004);
Williams-Bey, 263 F. App'x at 524.
CONCLUSION
To appeal the Court's decision, Petitioner must obtain a certificate of
appealability. See Greene v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 265 F.3d 369, 372 (6th Cir. 2001);
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts. To obtain a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make "a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such
a

showing,

Petitioner

must

show

"that

reasonable

jurists

could

debate

whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the
issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000) (cleaned up). And if a court denies a petition

5

Case 2:21-cv-12308-SJM-PTM ECF No. 5, PageID.22 Filed 12/08/21 Page 6 of 7

for a writ of habeas corpus on procedural grounds, the court should issue a certificate
of appealability when the petitioner shows both "that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling." Id. at 484.
The Court will deny a certificate of appealability because "a plain procedural
bar is present and the [] [C]ourt is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case," so "a
reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing
the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further." Id.
The Court will also deny Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis because
an appeal cannot be taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
Because the Court has now ruled on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
the Court will deny Petitioner's emergency motion to expedite the proceedings, ECF
4, as moot.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus [1] is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of
appealability.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is DENIED in forma pauperis
status on appeal.

6

Case 2:21-cv-12308-SJM-PTM ECF No. 5, PageID.23 Filed 12/08/21 Page 7 of 7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's emergency motion to expedite
the proceedings [4] is DENIED AS MOOT.
This is a final order that closes the case.
SO ORDERED.
s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: December 8, 2021
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on December 8, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/ David P. Parker
Case Manager

7