McLean v. Krueger
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: 1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.2) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 06/12/13. (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM SAMUEL McLEAN, JR.,
Petitioner
v.
WARDEN J.E. KRUEGER,
Respondent
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 1:CV-13-01029
(Judge Rambo)
MEMORANDUM
I.
Background
Petitioner William Samuel McLean, Jr., an inmate currently incarcerated at the
Federal Correctional Institution at Schuylkill in Minersville, Pennsylvania (“FCISchuylkill”),1 filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 on April 19, 2013. (Doc. 1.) In the petition, Petitioner alleges that the layout of
FCI-Schuylkill, as well as the stairs and lack of air conditioning, has aggravated his
epilepsy and caused him to have seizures. As relief, he requests a transfer to a
handicap-appropriate institution. For the reasons that follow, the petition will be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
1
In the response to the petition, Respondent mistakenly asserts that Petitioner is
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Allenwood (“FCI-Allenwood”) in White Deer,
Pennsylvania. (Doc. 13 at 1.) In light of the claims in the petition, however, Respondent’s
misstatement of Petitioner’s place of incarceration does not affect the court’s disposition.
II.
Discussion
It is well-settled that a habeas corpus petition may be brought by a prisoner
who seeks to challenge either the fact or duration of his confinement in prison.
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 (1973). Federal habeas corpus review 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, 540 (3d Cir. 2002).
In contrast, where “a judgment in Petitioner’s favor would not affect the fact or
duration of Petitioner’s incarceration, habeas relief is unavailable.” See Green v.
Bledsoe, Civ. No. 4:10-CV-0059, 2010 WL 1372409, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 5, 2010)
(quoting Suggs v. Bureau of Prisons, Civ. No. 08-3613, 2008 WL 2966740, at *4 (D.
N.J. July 31, 2008)). Rather, “when the challenge is to a condition of confinement
such that a finding in plaintiff’s favor would not alter his sentence or undo his
conviction, an action under § 1983 is appropriate.” Leamer, 288 F.3d at 542. Where
a federal inmate is challenging the conditions of his confinement, the filing of a
Bivens2 action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal counterpart to a § 1983 action, is
appropriate.
2
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2
In the instant case, Petitioner’s challenges to conditions and treatment in FCISchuylkill are not challenges to the fact or duration of his confinement. He does not
claim that his judgment of conviction was invalid or that he is being confined in
prison unlawfully. Rather, Petitioner is complaining that his placement and continued
confinement at FCI-Schuylkill violate his constitutional rights. This placement,
however, does not affect the length of his sentence. Further, a decision in his favor
would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction. Therefore, his claims are not
properly asserted in a habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See
Bedenfield v. Lewisburg, No. 10-1750, 2010 WL 3511507, at *1 (3d Cir. Sept. 9,
2010) (“Bedenfield’s challenge to his placement in the SMU is analogous to the
‘garden variety prison transfer’ that we have indicated should be challenged in a civil
rights action, not via a habeas petition”); Green, 2010 WL 1372409, at *2 (dismissing
petitioner’s § 2241 habeas petition challenging SMU placement as not cognizable
under § 2241); Woodruff v. Williamson, Civ. No. 3:06-CV-2310, 2009 WL 703200, at
*5 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2009) (same). While a habeas petition is not an appropriate
forum for Petitioner to assert these claims, the court cannot conclude, with absolute
certainty, that these claims cannot otherwise form the basis of any action.
3
Accordingly, the court will dismiss the instant petition without prejudice to
Petitioner’s right to pursue his claims in a proper action.3
An appropriate order will issue.
S/SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: June 12, 2013.
3
The court expresses no opinion as to the merits, if any, of any civil rights claim
Petitioner may file based upon the facts asserted in the instant petition.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM SAMUEL McLEAN, JR.,
Petitioner
v.
WARDEN J.E. KRUEGER,
Respondent
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 1:CV-13-01029
(Judge Rambo)
ORDER
In accordance with the accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
2) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
S/SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: June 12, 2013.
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?