Curtis v. Hanson

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 5/29/15 granting petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and setting forth the grounds for dismissal of the petition. (Related Docs. 1 , 2 ) (M,G)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

ADRIAN L. CURTIS,
Petitioner,
v.
R. HANSON,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:14 CV 2795
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Petitioner pro se Adrian L. Curtis brings this in forma pauperis habeas corpus petition,
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is an inmate at the Federal Satellite Low at Elkton
(FSL Elkton). He alleges that FSL Elkton staff unjustifiably applied a “greatest public safety
factor” in determining his custody classification. Petitioner believes the fact he was allowed
pretrial bond was not properly considered in classifying him. He complains that his current
classification hinders him from applying for social furloughs or work programs that would assist
his rehabilitation.
Writs of habeas corpus “may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the
district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a).

Section 2241 “is an affirmative grant of power to federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus to
prisoners being held in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
Rice v. White, 660 F.3d 242, 249 (6th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because petitioner is appearing pro se, the allegations in his petition must be construed in
his favor, and his pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those prepared by counsel .
Urbina v. Thoms, 270 F.3d 292, 295 (6th Cir.2001). However, this court may dismiss the
petition at any time, or make any such disposition as law and justice require, if it determines the
petition fails to establish adequate grounds for relief. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770,
775(1987); see also, Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir.1970) (district courts have a duty
to “screen out” petitions lacking merit on their face under 28 U.S.C. § 2243).
Petitioner has no constitutional right to any particular security classification, and no
constitutional right to participate in any prison rehabilitation programs. Moody v. Daggett, 429
U.S. 78, 88 n. 9 (1976); Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976). The BOP's
classification procedure functions solely within the discretion of the Attorney General, as
delegated to the Director of the BOP. See 18 U.S.C. § 4081; 28 C.F.R. § 0.96; Peck v. Hoff, 660
F.2d 371, 373 (8th Cir.1981). Therefore, prisoners who assert any right to a certain security
classification do not state a constitutional claim. Moody, 429 U.S. at 97. Congress has given
federal prison officials “full discretion” to control the conditions of confinement, and prisoners
have no legitimate constitutional entitlement to invoke due process claims based on security
classification. Id. at 88, n. 9.
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and this case is
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
2

that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 29, 2015

3