STILE v. ORTIZ et al

Filing 4

OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 7/19/17. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

James Stile,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden David Ortiz, et al.,

Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIV. ACTION NO. 17-2430(RMB)

OPINION

BUMB, U.S. District Judge
Petitioner, a prisoner confined at FCI Fort Dix, in Fort Dix,
New Jersey, submitted a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner alleged the conditions at
FCI Fort Dix, including but not limited to exposure to asbestos black
mold, and contaminated water are dangerous to his health, and mass
punishment practices create a dangerous living environment. (Id.)
For relief, Petitioner seeks early release from prison pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3626,1 based violation his Eighth Amendment rights, money

1

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(C)(3) provides:
Prisoner release order.--(A) In any civil
action with respect to prison conditions, no
court shall enter a prisoner release order
unless--

damages, and injunctive relief to improve the conditions of the
prison.
“Section

2241

is

the

only

statute

that

confers

habeas

jurisdiction to hear the petition of a federal prisoner who is
challenging not the validity but the execution of his sentence.”
Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing U.S. v.
Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185–88 (1979)).

Petitioner’s claims

involve the conditions of his confinement, and not the execution of
his sentence. A finding in Petitioner’s favor on these claims would
not alter his sentence or undo his conviction.

See Leamer v. Fauver,

288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002) (“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
[or

Bivens]

is

appropriate.”)

Furthermore,

the

Court

notes

Petitioner has filed a Bivens action in this Court, raising these
same claims.

See Stile v. United States of America, 17cv2693(RMB).

(i) a court has previously entered an order
for less intrusive relief that has failed
to remedy the deprivation of the Federal
right sought to be remedied through the
prisoner release order; and
(ii) the defendant has had a reasonable
amount of time to comply with the previous
court orders.
2

Therefore, in the accompanying Order filed herewith, this Court
will dismiss the present petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Dated:July 19, 2017

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

3