ROUDABUSH v. HOLLINGSWORTH et al

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 8/6/2015. (drw)n.m.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

James L. Roudabush, Jr.
Petitioner,
v.
J. Hollingsworth, Warden
et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIV. ACTION NO. 15-5944(RMB)

OPINION

BUMB, U.S. District Judge
Plaintiff, a prisoner confined at FCI Fort Dix, submitted a
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF
No. 1.) Petitioner alleged his life is in danger because he is not
receiving medical attention for his volatile blood pressure. (Id.)
Petitioner further alleged Defendants refuse him medical care in
retaliation for exercise of his constitutional rights. (Id.) Most
of Petitioner’s claims in this rambling petition appear to be
duplicative of claims being litigated in Plaintiff’s pending Bivens
action, Roudabush v. Bittinger, 15cv3185(RMB).1

1

At issue in Plaintiff’s Bivens’ action is whether he may file a civil
rights case in forma pauperis under the imminent danger exception to
the three strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
1

“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, [a civil rights] action under [Bivens or] § 1983 is
appropriate.” McGee v. Martinez, 627 F.3d 933, 936 (3d Cir. 2010)
(quoting Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002). Here,
Petitioner’s retaliation and medical care claims would not alter his
sentence or undo his conviction. Therefore, in the accompanying order
filed herewith, this Court will dismiss the present petition for lack
of jurisdiction. To the extent Petitioner has any conditions of
confinement claims that are not duplicative of claims in one his
pending actions, he should file those claims in a new Bivens action.

s/Renée Marie Bumb
Renée Marie Bumb
United States District Judge
Dated: August 6, 2015

2