ABRAMOV v. SHARTLE

Filing 4

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 5/22/2015. (dmr)(n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
___________________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
WARDEN J.T. SHARTLE,
:
:
Respondent.
:
___________________________________:
GIDON ABRAMOV,

Civ. No. 14-6448 (NLH)
OPINION

APPEARANCES:
Gidon Abramov, # 63359053
FCI Fairton
P.O. BOX 420
Fairton, NJ 08320
Plaintiff Pro se

HILLMAN, District Judge
On or about October 17, 2014, Petitioner Gidon Abramov, a
prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Fairton, New Jersey, filed this writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, challenging an institutional disciplinary
decision. (ECF No. 1).

On March 18, 2015, this Court

administratively terminated the action for failure to pay the
filing fee or submit a complete in forma pauperis application
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 81.2(b). (ECF No. 3).

On or about

April 9, 2015, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee and the case
was reopened.

The Court has reviewed the Petition and, for the

reasons that follow, it will be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
I.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner’s complaints arise from a search of Petitioner’s
cell on April 4, 2014 which revealed contraband.

During the

search, authorities at FCI Fairton located 83 individually
wrapped packages of stamps in a shared locker. (Exhibit 5,
Incident Report, ECF No. 1-3).
on April 8, 2014.

A disciplinary hearing was held

Based on the Incident Report and on

Petitioner’s admission of possession of the stamps, Petitioner
was found to have committed the prohibited act. Id.

The Unit

Disciplinary Committee (“UDC”) sanctioned Petitioner in the form
of “90 days loss of commissary, 90 days loss of trulincs 1, and
loss of [his] preferred cell assignment, to deter future
misconduct." (Exhibit 6, Disposition of Appeal, ECF No. 1-3).
Petitioner states that another inmate, Angelo T. Carter,
admitted ownership of the confiscated stamps during the hearing.
Petitioner asserts that the UDC arbitrarily disregarded inmate
Carter’s admission.

1

Petitioner attaches an affidavit from

The Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System (TRULINCS)
application enables electronic messages to be exchanged between
inmates and the general public in a secured manner. Federal
Bureau of Prisons,
http://www.bop.gov/inmates/communications.jsp.

inmate Carter in which he admits ownership. (Exhibit 4,
Affidavit, ECF No. 1-3).
Petitioner further denies making any statements of
ownership regarding the stamps or any admission of guilt.

He

alleges that the UDC fraudulently inserted these statements into
the record.

Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that his due

process rights were violated and he asks the Court to vacate and
dismiss the UDC’s April 8, 2014 decision and sanctions.
Petitioner appealed the disciplinary decision and submits
documentation in support of his assertion that he has exhausted
his administrative remedies (Exhibit, ECF 1-3).
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

United States Code Title 28, Section 2243, provides in
relevant part as follows:
A court, justice or judge entertaining an application
for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the
writ or issue an order directing the respondent to
show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless
it appears from the application that the applicant or
person detained is not entitled thereto.
A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than
more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
A pro se habeas petition must be construed liberally. See
Hunterson v. DiSabato, 308 F.3d 236, 243 (3d Cir. 2002).
Nevertheless, a federal district court can dismiss a habeas

corpus petition if it appears from the face of the petition that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Denny v. Schult,
708 F.3d 140, 148 n. 3 (3d Cir. 2013); See also 28 U.S.C. §§
2243, 2255.
III. DISCUSSION
Habeas corpus is an appropriate mechanism for a federal
prisoner to challenge the execution of his sentence. See Coady
v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485–86 (3d Cir. 2001); Barden v.
Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478–79 (3d Cir. 1990).
A habeas corpus petition is also the proper mechanism for a
prisoner to challenge the “fact or duration” of his confinement,
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498–99, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36
L.Ed.2d 439 (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, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 158 L.Ed.2d 32 (2004) and Edwards v.
Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997).
See also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161
L.Ed.2d 253 (2005).
Here, Petitioner files this habeas petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the UDC’s April 8, 2014 disciplinary
proceedings.

As set forth above, the sanctions imposed as a

result of those proceedings were 90 days loss of commissary, 90
days loss of trulincs, and loss of preferred cell assignment.

Because these privileges do not affect the length of
Petitioner’s confinement, or affect the execution of his
criminal sentence, his claims are not cognizable under § 2241.
See Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542-44 (3d Cir. 2002);
Preiser, 411 U.S. 475; see also Castillo v. FBOP FCI Fort Dix,
221 F. App'x 172, 175 (3d Cir. 2007) (claims based on loss of
privileges did not lie “at the core of habeas”); Levi v. Holt,
193 F. App'x 172, 175 (3d Cir. 2006) (finding that sanctions in
the form of loss of privileges cannot be challenged under § 2241
because those punishments do not affect the fact or length of
prisoner’s confinement or sentence).

Typically, these types of

claims are appropriately brought in the context of a civil
rights action. See e.g., Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532;
Castillo, 221 F. App'x at 175.
Thus, Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable under § 2241
and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Petition.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Petition will be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

An appropriate Order will

be entered.

___s/ Noel L. Hillman_____
NOEL L. HILLMAN
United States District Judge
Dated: May 22, 2015
Camden, New Jersey