Stile v. Merlak et al

Filing 3

Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order,, the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 2 ) is GRANTED, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. # 1 ) is DENIED and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 7/19/2018. (K,K)

       FILED 
   4:41 pm Jul 19 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk U.S. District Court 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Northern District of Ohio 
EASTERN DIVISION
             Cleveland 

JAMES STILE,
Petitioner,
vs.
STEVEN MERLAK,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:18 CV 858
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Pro se Petitioner James Stile, an inmate in the Federal Correctional Institution in Elkton,
Ohio filed the above-captioned Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
He was convicted in 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Maine on
charges of robbery of controlled substances from a DEA registered pharmacy. He is currently
serving a 120-month sentence.
Petitioner does not challenge his conviction or his sentence in this § 2241 Habeas
Petition. Instead, he contends: (1) the prison places him in a job that limits his access to the law
library; (2) the Bureau of Prisons retaliated against him for filing civil actions by transferring
him to a facility that is more than 500 miles from his court of conviction; (3) legal materials
were lost or destroyed during his transfer from FCI-Fort Dix to FCI-Elkton; and (4) the prison
has been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by assigning him to a facilities job
that required him to work outside in the cold to shovel snow.
In general, habeas corpus is available to prisoners seeking relief from unlawful
imprisonment or custody. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004). Federal

prisoners may use 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to attack the manner in which their sentence is being
executed, such as the computation of sentence credits or parole eligibility. Capaldi v. Pontesso,
135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998)(citing United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893 (6th Cir.
1991)); Wright v. United States Bd. of Parole, 557 F.2d 74, 77 (6th Cir. 1977). However, §
2241 is not available to review questions unrelated to the cause of detention. Martin, 391 F.3d
at 714. Prisoners challenging the conditions of their confinement must do so through a civil
rights action. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-88 (1973). Virtually every aspect of a
prisoner’s daily life that does not affect the duration of his confinement is considered a
“condition of confinement.”
Here, Petitioner is not challenging the Bureau of Prisons execution or calculation of his
federal sentence. Rather, he is challenging his prison employment assignment and conditions he
believes limit his ability to litigate his pending civil actions. Because none of these claims
directly concern the duration of his federal sentence or his release from incarceration with the
Bureau of Prisons, they are not the proper subjects of a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 2) is GRANTED,
the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. #1) is DENIED
and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Further, the Court certifies, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-