TAYLOR v. HOLMES

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 10/03/2012. (tf, n.m.)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MICHAEL TAYLOR,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLMES,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 12-4881 (JBS)
OPINION

APPEARANCES:
MICHAEL TAYLOR, Petitioner pro se
170209
South Woods State Prison
215 Burlington Road South
Bridgeton, N.J. 08302
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge
Petitioner Michael Taylor ("Petitioner"), a prisoner
currently confined at South Woods State Prison in Bridgeton, New
Jersey, has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

The respondent is Christopher

Holmes, administrator of South Woods State Prison.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner is scheduled to visit the law library at the
prison on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

On or about July 3, 2012,

Petitioner was removed from the schedule and he is being denied

access to the law library.

He alleges that this violates his

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Based on these facts, he

is seeking a writ of habeas corpus so his “custody may be
inquired into” and that he is “released from custody.”
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
“Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading
requirements.”

McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994).

Habeas Rule 2(c) requires a petition to “specify all the grounds
for relief available to the petitioner,” “state the facts
supporting each ground,” “state the relief requested,” be
printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten, and be signed under
penalty of perjury.

28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 2(c), applicable

through Rule 1(b).
Habeas Rule 4 requires the court to sua sponte dismiss a
petition without ordering a responsive pleading “[i]f it plainly
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”
U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4, applicable through Rule 1(b).

28

Thus,

“[f]ederal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas
petition that appears legally insufficient on its face.”
McFarland, 512 U.S. at 856.

Dismissal without the filing of an

answer has been found warranted when “it appears on the face of
the petition that petitioner is not entitled to [habeas] relief.”

2

Siers v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985).

See also Mayle v.

Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005).
B. Analysis
1. Habeas Jurisdiction
Section 2241 of Title 28 of the United States Code confers
jurisdiction on district courts to issue writs of habeas corpus
in response to a petition from a prisoner who is “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).

Section 2254 confers

jurisdiction on district courts to issue “writs of habeas corpus
on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
state court ... on the ground that he is in custody in violation
of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
In Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480 (3d Cir. 2001), a
Pennsylvania prisoner filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
2241 and 2254 challenging a decision of the state parole board
denying his application for release on parole.

On appeal, the

Third Circuit determined that the District Court had no
jurisdiction under § 2241, and the exclusive remedy for a state
prisoner who challenged his detention is a habeas corpus petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Third Circuit explained:
It is a well-established canon of statutory
construction that when two statutes cover the
same situation, the more specific statute
takes precedence over the more general one....
3

In the instant action, both Sections 2241 and
2254 authorize Coady's challenge to the
legality of his continued state custody.
However, with respect to habeas petitions
filed by state prisoners pursuant to Section
2254, Congress has restricted the availability
of second and successive petitions through
Section 2244(b). Allowing Coady to file the
instant petition in federal court pursuant to
Section 2241 without reliance on Section 2254
would circumvent this particular restriction
in the event that Coady seeks to repetition
for habeas relief and would thereby thwart
Congressional intent. Thus, applying the
“specific governs the general” canon of
statutory construction to this action, we hold
that Coady must rely on Section 2254 in
challenging the execution of his sentence.
Coady, 251 F.3d at 484–85 (citations, internal quotation marks
and footnote omitted); accord Washington v. Sobina, 509 F.3d 613,
619 n. 5 (3d Cir. 2007) (“We have held that a state prisoner
challenging the validity or execution of his state court sentence
must rely on the more specific provisions of § 2254 rather than §
2241.")
At the outset, the Court notes that Petitioner does not
identify any state court sentence that he is attacking.

Rather,

he is only attacking the decision not to permit him access to the
law library.
custody.”

However, his requested relief is “release from

Therefore, to the extent Petitioner did intend to

attack a sentence or conviction, this Court lacks jurisdiction
over any challenge to his New Jersey sentence and incarceration
under § 2241.

See Coady, 251 F.3d at 484–85; see also

4

Rittenberry v. Morgan, 468 F.3d 331, 336 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding
that habeas corpus petition seeking relief from state court
judgment must be brought under § 2254, not § 2241); Thomas v.
Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 787 (11th Cir. 2004) (“A state prisoner
cannot evade the procedural requirements of § 2254 by filing
something purporting to be a § 2241 petition”).

This Court will

dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction under § 2241.1
2.

Civil Rights Jurisdiction
To the extent Petitioner intended to challenge the denial of

law library access, this Court would not have habeas jurisdiction
of any kind over said claim.

A habeas corpus petition is the

proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the “fact or
duration” of his confinement, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
498-99 (1973), including challenges to prison disciplinary
proceedings that affect the length of confinement, such as
deprivation of good time credits, Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749
(2004) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). See also
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (2005).

The Third Circuit

stated the following:
[W]henever the challenge ultimately attacks the
“core of habeas”-the validity of the continued
conviction or the fact or length of the sentence-a
challenge, however denominated and regardless of
1

This Court will not re-characterize the Petition as a § 2254 petition.
See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003); In re Wagner, 421 F.3d
275 (3d Cir. 2005); Mason v. Myers, 208 F.3d 414 (3d Cir. 2000). If Petitioner
elects to file a § 2254 petition, he must use the § 2254 form, see Local Civ.
R. 81.2(a), and file it in a new docket number.

5

the relief sought, must be brought by way of a
habeas corpus petition. Conversely, when the
challenge is to a condition of confinement such
that a finding in plaintiff's favor would not alter
his sentence or undo his conviction, an action
under § 1983 is appropriate.
Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002).

See also

Ganim v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 235 F.App’x. 882, 2007 WL
1539942 (3d Cir. 2007) (challenge to garden-variety transfer not
cognizable in habeas); Castillo v. FBOP FCI Fort Dix, 221
F.App’x. 172, 2007 WL 1031279 (3d Cir. 2007) (habeas is proper
vehicle to challenge disciplinary proceeding resulting in loss of
good-time credits, but claims regarding sanctioned loss of phone
and visitation privileges not cognizable in habeas).
In the petition, Petitioner states that he is challenging
the prison’s denial of access to the law library.

However,

habeas relief is available only when prisoners “seek to
invalidate the duration of their confinement-either directly
through an injunction compelling speedier release or indirectly
through a judicial determination that necessarily implies the
unlawfulness of the [government's] custody,” Wilkinson v. Dotson,
544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005), and though Petitioner does request that
he be released from custody, the only facts alleged in the
petition relate solely to an access to the courts claim.

As

such, it appears that Petitioner is actually raising a civil
rights claim.

This Court lacks habeas jurisdiction over any

6

civil rights claims raised in the § 2241 petition and therefore,
to the extent that Petitioner alleges a denial of access to the
courts or other conditions of confinement claims under § 2241,
this Court will dismiss those claims for lack of jurisdiction.2
See Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533 (3d Cir. 2012) (District
Court lacked habeas jurisdiction to entertain claim that prison
officials referred him to the Special Management Unit as
punishment for filing lawsuits against Bureau of Prisons);
Bonadonna v. United States, 446 F. App'x 407 (3d Cir. 2011)
(District Court properly dismissed § 2241 petition seeking
restoration of soft shoes pass because petitioner did not
challenge duration or fact of his confinement).

2
The dismissal is without prejudice to any right Petitioner may have to
assert his civil rights claims in a properly filed complaint, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The filing fee for a habeas petition is $5.00. In contrast, the
filing fee for a § 1983 complaint is $350.00, and inmates filing a § 1983
complaint who proceed in forma pauperis are required to pay the entire filing
fee in monthly installments, which are deducted from their prison account. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). In addition, if a prisoner has, on three or more
occasions while incarcerated, brought an action or appeal in a federal court
that was dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from
immune defendants, then the prisoner may not bring another action in forma
pauperis unless he or she is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because of these differences, this Court will not sua
sponte re-characterize the pleading as a civil complaint. If Petitioner
chooses to bring a civil complaint, he may do so by filing a separate § 1983
complaint which will be assigned a new docket number.

7

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Petition will be
dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. An
appropriate order follows.

Dated:

October 3, 2012
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
United States District Judge

8