Horton v. Mosley
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing this matter with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, without an evidentiary hearing. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 5/6/2014. (JS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
SAMUEL LEE HORTON II
VERSUS
PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-346-CWR-FKB
BONITA MOSLEY, Warden
RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Petitioner, Samuel
Lee Horton II, register number 57578-112, an inmate incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Complex - Yazoo City Low (FCC-Yazoo), Yazoo City, Mississippi, files this petition for habeas
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on April 24, 2014. The Petitioner has named as the respondent
Warden Mosley. As relief, Petitioner is requesting that Case Manager Hardy be removed from her
job and Petitioner be transferred to the institution of his choice. Pet. [1] at 8.
Background
Petitioner states that he is a federal inmate housed at the FCC - Yazoo. Pet. [1] at 1.
According to Petitioner, on February 25, 2013, he sent an electronic request to Case Manager Hardy
requesting a transfer to either Miami or Coleman - Low. Id. at 10. On March 15, 2013, Petitioner
was informed that his application and request for transfer indicated that “[d]uring his program
review, he . . . requested a transfer to FCC Yazoo City, Low, MS.” Id. Petitioner’s ground for
habeas relief is “Falsification of Documents by a Federal Officer.” Id. at 6.
Analysis
A petition for habeas relief pursuant to § 2241 will not be granted unless the petitioner is “in
custody in violation of the Constitution or law or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). Moreover, “habeas is not available to review questions unrelated to the cause of
detention.” Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935 (5th Cir.1976). The United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Pierre stated that the “sole function” for a habeas action “is to grant
relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody and it cannot be used properly for any other purpose.”
Id. at 935-36.
Based on the allegations asserted by the Petitioner, this Court finds that the Petitioner is not
challenging the Bureau of Prisons execution or calculation of his federal sentence and he is not
alleging that he is incarcerated for a federal criminal conviction which violates the Constitution or
law or treaties of the United States. Petitioner is clearly challenging a condition of his confinement,
i.e., where he is housed. The issue of Petitioner’s place of incarceration presently before this Court
has nothing to do with a claim of early release from his incarceration. In fact, the Fifth Circuit has
specifically held that a § 2241 habeas petition does not authorize this Court to transfer the Petitioner
to a BOP correctional facility or to another facility. See Hernadez v. Garrison, 916 F.2d 291, 293
(5th Cir. 1990)(finding the injunctive remedy of transfer to another correctional facility “is not a
proper subject for a habeas corpus petition”); see also Antonelli v. Mukasey, 275 F. App’x 314, 315
(5th Cir. Apr. 18, 2008)(determining that a claim concerning housing was not proper as a § 2241,
and even if such a claim was proper, the petitioner has no constitutional right to be housed in a
particular facility, citing Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996)). Therefore, the claim of the
instant petition is not the proper subject of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241.1
Conclusion
As stated above, the Petitioner cannot proceed with this petition for habeas corpus relief filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because he has not presented an arguable claim for habeas corpus
relief. As such, this petition filed pursuant to § 2241 is dismissed with prejudice without an
1
The Court finds that even if it were to convert this § 2241 petition to a more appropriate procedural vehicle
the Petitioner has not established that he is entitled to relief. See Antonelli, 275 F. App’x at 314-15.
2
evidentiary hearing.
SO ORDERED this the 6th day of May, 2014.
s/Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?