Milhouse v. Ebbert

Filing 19

ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 4/28/17. (rw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KAREEM HASSAN MILHOUSE,
Petitioner
vs.
DAVID EBBERT,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:15-CV-0390
(Judge Kane)

MEMORANDUM
Background
On February 24, 2015, Kareem Hassan Milhouse, an inmate
confined in the Special Management Unit at the United States
Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (“USP-Lewisburg), filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241, in
which he named the Warden of USP-Lewisburg as the Respondent.
(Doc. No. 1.)

In the petition, Milhouse challenges his placement

in the Special Management Unit and requests “immediate transfer
from [the] special management unit.” (Id. at 8.)

Milhouse further

claims that his placement in the Special Management Unit was based
on two prior misconducts of which he was found guilty by a
Discipline Hearing Officer in September, 2013,1 and January,

1. Milhouse received an Incident Report, number 2490018, on
September 8, 2013. (Doc. 6-1, at 8.) A hearing before a
Discipline Hearing Officer was held on September 16, 2013. (Id.)
Milhouse admitted that he engaged in fighting resulting in minor
injury and received 30 days of disciplinary segregation and lost
27 days of Good Conduct Time. (Id.) There is no indication that
Milhouse filed an administrative appeal. (Id.)

2014.2 (Doc. 7, at 1.) Milhouse states the “grounds” for his
habeas petition are “Due Process violations” and “Double
Jeopardy.” (Doc. No. 1, at 7-8.)

Along with the petition,

Milhouse filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Doc. No. 2.)

After being directed to do so, a response to

Milhouse’s habeas petition was filed by Warden Ebbert on May 27,
2015. (Doc. No. 6.)

The petition became ripe for disposition on

June 18, 2015, when Milhouse filed a traverse.

For the reasons

set forth below Milhouse’s petition will be denied.
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 (1973); see also Rinaldi v. Zickefoose, 2013 WL 4812491,
at *1 (M.D.Pa. 2013)(Rambo, J.)(citing Preiser v. Rodriguez).
However, “[f]ederal habeas corpus review is available only ‘where
the deprivation of rights is such that it necessarily impacts the
fact or length of detention.’” Rinaldi, 2013 WL 4812491, at *1
(quoting Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002);
see also Descamps v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 617 F. App’x 110, 111
(3d Cir. 2015)(the purpose of a habeas petition is to challenge
2. Milhouse received an Incident Report, number 2526704, on
December 14, 2013. (Doc. 6-1, at 8.) A hearing before a
Discipline Hearing Officer was held on January 8, 2014. (Id.)
Milhouse admitted that he possessed homemade alcohol and lost 40
days Good Conduct Time and commissary and visiting privileges for
90 days. (Id.) It appears that Milhouse did pursue an
administrative appeal. (Id.)
2

the fact or duration of confinement not the conditions of
confinement);3 McCarthy v. Warden, USP Lewisburg, 417 F. App’x
128, 129-130 (3d Cir. March 14, 2011)(same); Brown v. Bledsoe, 405
F. App’x 575, 576-577 (3d Cir. Jan. 12, 2011)(same); Bedenfield v.
Warden Lewisburg, 393 F. App’x 32, 33 (3d Cir. Sept. 9,
2010)(same).
A prisoner has no justifiable expectation that he will be
incarcerated in a particular prison or prison cell block or unit.
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983).

With respect to federal

prisoners, the Bureau of Prisons has the power, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3621(b), to "transfer a prisoner from one facility to
another at any time."

Prows v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 981

F.2d 466, 469 n.3 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 830,
114 S. Ct. 98 (1993); Cardenas v. Wigen, 921 F. Supp. 286, 291
(E.D. Pa. 1996).

Section 3621(b) authorizes the Bureau "to

designate the place of confinement for purposes of serving federal
sentences of imprisonment."

Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d

Cir. 1991).
In the instant petition, Milhouse is not challenging the fact
or duration of his present incarceration.

Rather, Milhouse seeks

3. In Descamps, a per curiam and non-precedential opinion, the
Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the order of the district
court “because no substantial question [was] presented by [the]
appeal.” 617 F. App’x at 111. In so doing the Court citing Leamer
v. Fauver, a precedential opinion, stated as follows: “To the
extent that Descamps challenged the adequacy of the dental and
mental care he is receiving, he is challenging conditions of his
confinement; his claims do not sound in habeas corpus.” Id.
3

to challenge the locality and conditions of his confinement. He
challenges his designation and placement in the Special Management
Unit.

The fact that Milhouse was placed in the Special Management

Unit does not impact the fact or length of his incarceration.
Moreover, it is clear that decisions regarding Milhouse’s
designation are within the sound discretion of the BOP, an agency
under the Justice Department and overseen by the Attorney General.
Accordingly, “habeas corpus is not an appropriate or available
federal remedy.” Linnen v. Armainis, 991 F.2d 1102, 1109 (3d Cir.
1993).4
Finally, because Milhouse is not detained because of process
issued by a state court and the petition is not brought pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, no action by this court with respect

4. While the Due Process Clause protects against the revocation
of good-time, it does not provide the same level of protection
against the imposition of other forms of discipline. See Torres
v. Fauver, 292 F.3d 141, 150-51 (3d Cir.2002) (citing Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486(1995)). Milhouse’s designation to the
Special Management Unit is not a form of discipline but a matter
of security classification and, even if it was a matter of
discipline, it does not invoke the same due process protections.
See Torres, 292 F.3d at 150-51. Such designation cannot be
challenged under § 2241 because in no manner does it affect the
fact or length of his sentence or confinement. See Leamer v.
Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540-42 (3d Cir.2002). Furthermore,
Milhouse has not cited any authority prohibiting the BOP from
considering an inmate’s disciplinary record in determining
whether or not the inmate should be placed in the Special
Management Unit.
4

to a certificate of appealability is necessary.
An appropriate order will be entered.

5