Edington v. F.C.I. Elkton
Filing
5
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Petition is dismissed pursuant to 28 USC 2243 for lack of subject matter jurisdicton, but without prejudice to file a civil rights action. The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 1/14/2014. (S,AL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Jeremy R. Edington,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden F.C.I. Elkton,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:13cv0129
Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick
MEMORANDUM OPINION
& ORDER
Before the Court is pro se petitioner Jeremy R. Edington’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner, who is incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institute at Elkton, Ohio, claims the Respondent is unfairly denying him access to email
communication. He seeks an Order allowing him to email his authorized contacts “without
discrimination.”
BACKGROUND
On July 10, 2010, a criminal complaint was filed against Petitioner in the United States
District Court for Southern District of Ohio. United States v. Edington, No. 2:10CR0335, (S.D.
Ohio)(Sargus, J.) The court later issued a three-count indictment charging Petitioner with Coercion
and Enticement (Count 1) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), Receipt of Visual Depictions (Counts
2) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(A)(2) and (B)(1), and Possession of Visual Depictions (Count 3)
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Id. (Doc. No. 27). A superseding indictment was filed on
June 30, 2011, that added two counts of Receipt of Visual Depictions (Counts 2-4) in violation of 18
1
U.S.C. § 2252(A)(2) and (B)(1) and Possession of Visual Depictions (Count 5) in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Id. (Doc. No. 74).
A jury found Petitioner guilty on all Counts of the superseding indictment. Judge Sargus
sentenced Petitioner to 120 months on Count 1; a concurrent 60month sentence on Counts 2, 3,
and 4, and a consecutive sentence of 36 Months on Count 5 at the completion of his sentences for
Counts 1-4.
Once Petitioner was incarcerated at F.C.I. Elkton, his Unit Team met on March 13, 2012, to
consider his eligibility for email access through the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Trust Fund Limited
Inmate Computer System (TRULINCS) Electronic Messaging System. Because Petitioner’s offense
involved computer abuse in furtherance of criminal activity, he was denied email access. The
following month, Petitioner filed a Request for Administrative Remedy complaining that his email
access was improperly denied because it was based on the prison’s incorrect assumption that he was
convicted of a computer related sex crime. Petitioner argued that his crime was not committed
through email, but instead involved “computer chat.” As such, he believed he was at least entitled
to email access to his approved visitors. On the same date Petitioner submitted his request, F.C.I.
Elkton staff responded. The request was denied and staff cited Program Statement (PS) § 5265.13,
Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System (TRULINCS) Electronic Messaging System, as
justification for its decision. The relevant program statement authorizes the BOP to limit or deny
prisoners access to TRULINCS when it determines that its use “would threaten the safety, security,
or orderly running of the institution or the protection of the public and staff.” (Doc. 1-3, at 1).
Petitioner’s subsequent appeals to the warden and BOP Regional Director were also denied.
The warden explained, in part, that Petitioner used instant messaging to “engage[] in chats with a 14year old boy for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts.” (Doc. 1-5, at 1). In addition, the Regional
2
Director noted that Petitioner posted an on-line advertisement in a network of on-line communities
to engage in sexual activity.
On appeal to the General Counsel, Petitioner’s unit manager advised him to consider the
appeal denied because a response was to not received within the prescribed time frame. Having fully
exhausted his administrative remedies, Petitioner filed the above-captioned case.
Petitioner now raises the following three grounds for relief: (1) the BOP has “granular
control” over the TRULINC messaging system, therefore his access would not pose a threat; (2)
there are no “parallels” to email and the offense for which he was convicted; (3) and the denial is
discriminatory based on his sexual orientation and crime.
With respect to his first ground, Petitioner argues the BOP should permit him to email his
approved list of contacts. These are the same individuals with whom he corresponds by regular post
and the prison does not monitor those communications as closely as it could monitor his email.
In support of his second ground, Petitioner maintains that his crime involved contact with
random individuals. Conversely, TRULINC would clearly allow the prison to restrict all
communication to individuals the prison already authorized him to contact. He argues, further, that
other prisoners who have offenses involving computer abuse to further criminal activity are
permitted to use TRULINCS. Therefore, he concludes the prison’s decision to deny him access is
simply discriminatory.
Finally, in his third ground for relief Petitioner states discrimination “may be occurring due
to my sexual orientation [and] to mete out more punishment for my alleged offense.” (Doc. No. 1,
at 7). No other facts are alleged in support of this theory, however.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
For any federal habeas petitioner, “[t]he burden to show that he is in custody in
violation of the Constitution of the United States is on the prisoner.” Dodge v. Johnson
3
471 F.2d 1249, (6th Cir. 1973)(citing Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 138 (6th Cir. 1970), cert.
denied, 400 U.S. 906 (1970)). Therefore, if “‘it appears from the application that the applicant or
person detained is not entitled [to relief] thereto,’” the petition will be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. §
2243(citation omitted).
DISCUSSION
The federal habeas statute provides, in relevant part: "The writ of habeas
corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless . . . [h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or
laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The statute only extends its reach to
challenges that affect the length or duration of a prisoner's sentence. Thus, any claims seeking to
challenge the execution or manner in which the sentence is served shall be filed in the court having
jurisdiction over the prisoner's custodian under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122,
1123 (6th Cir. 1998)(citing United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893 (6th Cir. 1991)). While this Court
has personal jurisdiction over the Petition, it lacks subject matter jurisdiction for the reasons stated
below.
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Before reaching the merits of a case, federal courts are obliged to ensure that they enjoy
subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. See Sinochem Intern. Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping
Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31 (2007) ("[A] federal court has leeway to choose among threshold
grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Without
jurisdiction, a court cannot proceed at all in any cause, “jurisdiction is power to declare law, and
when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining for the court is that of announcing the fact and
dismissing the cause.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (citation
omitted).
4
Petitioner argues he is being subjected to conditions of confinement that violate his
Constitutional rights. This type of claim may not be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which is
reserved for challenges to the execution of a sentence, such as the computation of parole or
sentence credits, and may not be used to challenge the validity of a conviction or the conditions of
one’s confinement. See Cohen v. United States, 593 F.2d 766, 770-71 (6th Cir. 1979). When a prisoner
challenges the conditions of his or her confinement but not the fact or length of his custody, the
proper mechanism is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens.1 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 499 (1973); see Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that the district
court should dismiss the § 2241 claim without prejudice so the state petitioner could re-file as a §
1983 claim); Sullivan v. United States, 90 Fed.Appx. 862, 863 (6th Cir. 2004) (construing conditions-ofconfinement claims as properly brought in a civil action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)). To date, the Sixth Circuit has consistently supported
dismissal of these claims without prejudice. Luedtke v. Berkebile, 704 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2013) ( district
court properly dismissed petitioner’s claims because § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for a prisoner
to challenge conditions of confinement). Nowhere in his pleading does Petitioner demonstrate any
entitlement to challenge the conditions of his confinement in a § 2241 habeas petition. Therefore, I
cannot find that he is entitled to habeas relief.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Petition is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, but without prejudice to file a civil rights action. The Court certifies that
an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.2
1
In Bivens, the Supreme Court recognized in the United States Constitution itself an implicit damages cause of action
against individual federal officials for violations of constitutional rights. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides: “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing
that it is not taken in good faith.”
5
So Ordered.
s/Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?