RODRIGUEZ v. ORTIZ

Filing 5

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 4/6/2018. (rtm, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
JAIME RODRIGUEZ,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
Civ. No. 17-12590 (NLH)
:
v.
:
OPINION
:
DAVID ORTIZ,
:
:
Respondent.
:
______________________________:
APPEARANCE:
Jaime Rodriguez, No. 34911-054
FCI – Fort Dix
P.O. Box 2000
Joint Base MDL, NJ 08640
Petitioner Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Jaime Rodriguez, a prisoner presently
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) at
Fort Dix, in Fort Dix, New Jersey, filed this Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he seeks to
challenge the prison’s policies regarding the revocation of
privileges and clothing storage.

ECF No. 1.

The Petitioner has

paid the required habeas filing fee. 1

1

The Court initially administratively terminated this matter
because the Petitioner had failed either to pay the filing fee
or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See ECF
Nos. 2 (opinion), 3 (order). Petitioner paid the filing fee
within the time outlined in the Court’s order and also submitted
a letter requesting that the Court reopen his case. See ECF No.
4.

At this time, the Court will review the Petition pursuant
to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, (amended
Dec. 1, 2004), made applicable to § 2241 petitions through Rule
1(b) of the Habeas Rules.

See also 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

For the

reasons expressed below, this Court will dismiss the Petition
for lack of jurisdiction.
I.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner raises two claims for relief in his Petition.

First, Petitioner seeks an end to what he describes as arbitrary
punishment inflicted upon Rodriguez and other inmates, in the
nature of the revocation of privileges, as a result of the
actions of only a few inmates.

ECF No. 1, Pet. at 3.

Petitioner asserts that such punishment lacks constitutional due
process.

Id. at 1.

Petitioner’s second claim seeks to end the

prison’s “irrational and unhygienic” requirement of storing
outerwear such as jackets and coats inside closed lockers
instead of hanging outside the locker on a hook, a practice
permitted at other BOP facilities.

Id. at 2, 10.

Petitioner

argues that such clothing becomes dirty and may foster the
spread of disease and parasites when it is stored inside the
inmate’s locker along with clean clothing and food items.
at 11.

Id.

Further compounding the problem, according to

Petitioner, is that inmates are prohibited from washing the
jackets and other outerwear in the laundry machines provided in
2

an inmate’s housing unit.

Id. at 5.

Petitioner asserts that

the policy related to outerwear violates the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
II.

Id. at 2, 11.

DISCUSSION
A.

Legal Standard

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. Schultz,

708 F.3d 140, 148 n.3 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
B. Analysis
Federal habeas corpus relief is available only “where the
deprivation of rights is such that it necessarily impacts the
fact or length of detention.”

Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532,
3

540 (3d Cir. 2002).

See Bonadonna v. United States, 446 F.

App’x 407 (3d Cir. 2011).

Petitioner’s allegations regarding

the revocation of privileges and the outerwear policy do not
“spell speedier release,” and thus does not lie at the “‘the
core of habeas corpus.’”

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82

(2005) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973)).
See also Leamer, 288 F.3d at 542–44.

Petitioner is not seeking

a speedier release from his incarceration.

Instead, he seeks

only to change the policies at FCI Fort Dix regarding the
revocation of privileges and the storage of outerwear, which he
asserts are unconstitutional.

Petitioner must proceed through a

civil rights action to challenge these policies.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that it lacks
jurisdiction under § 2241 over the instant habeas petition.

See

Bonadonna, 446 F. App’x at 409 (affirming dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction of habeas petition that sought to challenge
prison’s footwear policy).

Whenever a civil action is filed in

a court that lacks jurisdiction, “the court shall, if it is in
the interests of justice, transfer such action . . . to any
other such court in which the action . . . could have been
brought at the time it was filed.”

28 U.S.C. § 1631.

The Court

finds that it is not in the interests of justice to transfer the
Petition because there is no court in which the Petitioner may
maintain such claims as a habeas petition.
4

Petitioner is free

to file a civil rights action to challenge the policies at issue
on his own.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition will be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.

An appropriate order follows.

Dated: April 6, 2018
At Camden, New Jersey

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

5