WILLIAMS v. ORTIZ

Filing 9

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 8/14/2019. (dmr)(n.m.)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
________________________
HUEY P. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner
v.
DAVID ORTIZ,
Respondent
________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civ. No. 18-10677 (RMB)
OPINION

BUMB, United States District Judge
Petitioner Huey P. Williams is a prisoner incarcerated in the
Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey. He filed
a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
alleging the Bureau of Prisons retaliated against him for filing
grievances by refusing to transfer him to a minimum-security camp.
(Pet., ECF No. 1.) For relief, he seeks an order directing the BOP
to consider his immediate transfer to Bastrop Minimum Security
Camp. (Id., ¶14.) Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition
for lack of jurisdiction. (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 8.) For the
reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses the habeas petition
for lack of jurisdiction.

I.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner is serving a 63-month term of imprisonment imposed

by the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas on
November 20, 2015 for aiding and abetting health care fraud.
(Declaration of Tara Moran1 (“Moran Decl.”) Ex. 1, ECF No. 8-2 at
5.) Petitioner’s projected release date is October 6, 2019. (Id.
at 4.)
II.

THE PETITION
In Ground One of the habeas petition, Petitioner contends

that he is entitled to transfer to a minimum security camp based
on his custody classification score of eight points. (Pet., ECF
No. 1, ¶13, Ground One.) For Ground Two of his habeas petition,
Petitioner asserts he was denied minimum-security camp placement
on a discriminatory basis because similarly situated FCI Beaumont
inmates who received a Series 100 Incident Report were permitted
to transfer to a minimum-security camp. (Id., Ground Two.) In
Ground Three of the habeas petition, Petitioner asserts that he
was assured verbally and in writing that he would be transferred
to a minimum-security camp. (Id., Ground Three.)

1

Tara Moran is a Legal Assistant with the Bureau of Prisons,
employed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New
Jersey. (Moran Decl., ¶1, ECF No.
8-2 at 1.) As part of her
official duties, she has access to BOP files maintained in the
ordinary course of business. (Id.)
2 

III. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Respondent asserts that habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 are limited to challenges to the execution of an inmate’s
sentence. (Respondent’s Brief, ECF No. 8-1 at 11.) Denial of
Petitioner’s transfer request to a minimum security camp cannot be
redressed by a habeas petition because the challenge does not go
to the basic fact or duration of confinement. (Respondent’s Brief,
ECF No. 8-1 at 12.) Respondent contends allegations that the BOP
violated

Petitioner’s

constitutional

rights

do

not

cure

the

jurisdictional defect. (Id. at 13.)
IV.

DISCUSSION
An inmate’s challenge to how his sentence is executed is

properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 243-44 (3d Cir. 2005). A simple or “garden
variety” prison transfer does not fall within the meaning of
“execution” of a prisoner’s sentence for purposes of bringing a
habeas petition under § 2241. Ganim v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
235 F. App’x 882, 883 (3d Cir. 2007); Briley v. Warden FCI Fort
Dix, 703 F. App’x 69, 71 (3d Cir. 2017). Review of the BOP’s
response to a transfer request is far removed from a determination
about the length of a sentence. Ganim, 235 F. App’x at 884.
“Prisoners

have

no

constitutional

right

to

a

particular

classification.” Levi v. Ebbert, 353 F. App’x 681, 682 (3d Cir.
2009).
3 

Petitioner has not established jurisdiction under § 2241 to
challenge the BOP’s denial of his request for transfer to a minimum
security camp. In order to challenge the BOP’s execution of his
sentence under § 2241, a petitioner must allege that the “BOP’s
conduct was somehow inconsistent with a command or recommendation
in the sentencing judgment.” See Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533,
537 (3d Cir. 2010) (referral to SMU, a program that limits an
inmate’s
execution

contact
of

a

with

other

prisoner’s

prisoners,
sentence).

does

not

concern

Petitioner

has

the
not

established jurisdiction under § 2241.
V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the habeas petition is

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Dismissal of the petition is
without prejudice to bringing constitutional claims in a Bivens
action. Cardona, 563 F. App’x 191 at 194 (habeas petition may be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and reasserted as a civil rights
claim).

An appropriate Order follows.

Dated: August 14, 2019
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

4