Cooper v. NH State Prison, Warden
Filing
4
THIS ENTRY REPLACES DOCUMENT NO. 3.///ORDER denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and close the case. So Ordered by Judge Steven J. McAuliffe. So Ordered by Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.(lat)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Vincent Rashad Cooper
v.
Case No. 14-cv-84-SM
Opinion No. 2014 DNH 077
New Hampshire State Prison Warden
O R D E R
Petitioner, Vincent Rashad Cooper, has filed a petition for
habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that
defendants, New Hampshire State Prison and one of its
administrative hearing officers, deprived him of his federal
right to due process during the course of prison disciplinary
proceedings.
Cooper’s petition is before the court for
preliminary review.
See Rules 1(b) and 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
If “it
plainly appears . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court,” the court “must dismiss the
petition.”
Id. Rule 4.
Cooper alleges that defendants deprived him of due process
when they failed to abide by a prison regulation requiring that
he be given twenty-four hours advance notice of the date and time
of his disciplinary hearing.
As relief for the alleged due
process violation, Cooper asks this court to “[d]ismiss all
disciplinary sanctions” imposed by the prison authorities
following his hearing, specifically, “5 days punitive segregation
suspended for 90 days, 20 hrs extra duty, 15 hrs loss of
recreation, 15 days loss of canteen suspended for 90 days.”
Petition at 3.
Generally speaking, “habeas corpus proceedings are the
proper mechanism for challenging the ‘legality or duration’ of
confinement,” but not the “‘conditions of confinement.’”
Crooker
v. Grondolsky, 2012 WL 5416422, at *1 (D. Mass. Nov. 1, 2012)
(citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-99 (1973)).
Given even a liberal reading, the petition here does not
plausibly challenge the legality or duration of Cooper’s
confinement.
Rather, it describes what is, in substance, a claim
assertable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating to conditions of
confinement and a claim that is not likely viable in any event.
See Pratt v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corrections, 2007 WL 3342378,
at *9 (D.N.H. Nov. 7, 2007) (holding that because the punishment
- “additional hours of work duty and the loss of canteen and
recreation privileges for a few days” - was not “sufficiently
severe,” plaintiff failed to state a claim “that defendants
violated his constitutionally protected due process rights during
the course of the disciplinary proceedings.”) (citing Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)).
2
Accordingly, because Cooper plainly has not stated a
cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief, the petition
is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
April 21, 2014
cc:
Vincent R. Cooper, pro se
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?