Hudson v. Nickrenz et al
ORDER re: 3 APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge - The Magistrate Judge's Order of March 18, 2014 [ECF No. 2] is AFFIRMED, but for the deadline in paragraph 4 on page 6 of the Order, which is EXTENDED from April 11, 2014 to May 16, 2014. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on April 23, 2014. (CBC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jamal Derrick Hudson,
No. 14-cv-696 (JNE/LIB)
C. Nickrenz, Warden Duluth FPC; Bureau of
Prisons; N. Mottaghi, Case Manager, Terminal
Island FCI; and K. Winger, Unit Manager,
Duluth FPC, Bureau of Prisons,
Petitioner Jamal Derrick Hudson is a federal inmate currently housed at the Federal
Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota. Hudson initiated this action by filing a self-styled “Petition
for Relief under 28 U.S.C. ¶ 2241,” which he also captions as a “motion to transfer to a prison
camp near legal residence . . . .” ECF No. 1. In his filing, Hudson alleges that he was transferred
from the Federal Correctional Institution-Terminal Island in California to FPC-Duluth as a result
of a transfer request that had been intentionally falsified by his case manager. Id. at 1. Hudson
also alleges that, by sending him to FPC-Duluth, the Bureau of Prisons violated its own policy
regarding the placement of inmates, and that it refused to correct the error and ignored the
actions of the case manager when he pursued administrative remedies. Id. at 1-2. Hudson
asserts that this constitutes a violation his due process rights, id. at 3, and as a remedy, he seeks a
transfer to a facility closer to his wife and three children in Austin, Texas, id. at 1.
In an order dated March 18, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois
determined that Hudson’s “claims for relief cannot properly be addressed or decided in a habeas
corpus case.” ECF No. 2 at 1. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge ordered that Hudson’s habeas
petition be stricken without prejudice under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
and, while cautioning Hudson that “it appears doubtful that he will be able to plead an actionable
claim,” granted him leave to file a new civil pleading in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8-11 and Local Rule 9.3. Id. at 5-6. The Magistrate Judge also directed that any new
pleading must be filed by April 11, 2014 and be accompanied by either a $395 filing fee
(reflecting the $5 filing fee Hudson has already paid for his habeas petition) or an application to
proceed in forma pauperis with an initial partial filing fee. Id. at 6. Finally, the Magistrate Judge
alerted Hudson that a failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that this
action be dismissed without prejudice. Id.
Hudson objected to the Magistrate Judge’s order. ECF No. 3. In his objection, Hudson
challenges the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that his claim is not cognizable in a habeas corpus
proceeding. Hudson also contests the Magistrate Judge’s use of Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §
2254 Proceedings, as his petition is filed under § 2241.
Neither of Hudson’s objections is meritorious. In addition to challenging the validity of a
sentence through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 or 2255, a
prisoner may also bring a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district in which he is
imprisoned to challenge the lawfulness of the execution of his sentence. See Matheny v.
Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 711 (8th Cir. 2002). As the Magistrate Judge explained, however, these
habeas actions are distinct from a challenge to the conditions of confinement, which is properly
brought as a non-habeas civil action, whether under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a state prisoner or
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971) for a federal prisoner.
Hudson’s petition asserts a grievance with the current location of his imprisonment and
the manner in which he was transferred to that facility; it is not a challenge to the fact, duration,
or execution of his sentence. Furthermore, in a series of cases brought by state prisoners, the
Eighth Circuit has determined that prison transfer claims are properly brought under § 1983.
See, e.g., Farver v. Schwartz, 255 F.3d 473, 475 (8th Cir. 2001); Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734, 737
(8th Cir. 1993); Murphy v. Missouri Dept. of Correction, 769 F.2d 502, 503 n.1 (8th Cir. 1985).
The Magistrate Judge therefore did not err in concluding that Hudson’s claim does not sound in
As for Hudson’s second objection, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings in
the United States District Courts, which provides for preliminary review of habeas petitions, may
be applied to a § 2241 habeas petition under the express terms of Rule 1(b). See Rule 1(b)
(providing that the “district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition
not” filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254).
The Magistrate Judge’s order will therefore be affirmed. With that said, the Court
recognizes that the April 11 deadline the Magistrate Judge set for Hudson to file a new (nonhabeas) civil complaint came and went while Hudson’s objection was pending. It is appropriate
to modify the order to provide Hudson with an additional period of time in which to properly file
a new pleading along with either the full filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis
accompanied by an initial partial filing fee.
The Court therefore modifies the Magistrate Judge’s order to extend the deadline in
paragraph 4 on page 6 from April 11, 2014 to May 16, 2014. The order is otherwise affirmed.
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons discussed above,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Order of March 18, 2014 [ECF No. 2] is AFFIRMED, but for the
deadline in paragraph 4 on page 6 of the Order, which is EXTENDED from April 11,
2014 to May 16, 2014.
Dated: April 23, 2014
s/Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge
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?