McCarthy v. Ebbert

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 2/22/16. (ma)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN J. McCARTHY,
Petitioner
vs.
WARDEN EBBERT,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-15-0642
(Judge Caldwell)

----------------------------------------------------------------JOHN J. McCARTHY,
Petitioner
vs.
WARDEN USP LEWISBURG,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-15-1023
(Judge Caldwell)

----------------------------------------------------------------JOHN J. McCARTHY,
Petitioner
vs.
WARDEN EBBERT,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-15-1374
(Judge Caldwell)

----------------------------------------------------------------JOHN J. McCARTHY,
Petitioner
vs.
WARDEN EBBERT,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-15-1685
(Judge Caldwell)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

JOHN J. McCARTHY,
Petitioner
vs.
WARDEN EBBERT,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-15-1912
(Judge Caldwell)

----------------------------------------------------------------JOHN J. McCARTHY,
Petitioner
vs.
WARDEN EBBERT,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-15-1913
(Judge Caldwell)

----------------------------------------------------------------JOHN J. McCARTHY,
Petitioner
vs.
WARDEN DAVID EBBERT,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-16-0007
(Judge Caldwell)

MEMORANDUM

I.

Introduction
Presently before the court are seven petitions for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by John McCarthy, a federal prisoner housed at the
United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. In all seven cases, McCarthy
alleges that the BOP has failed to properly consider him for pre-release placement in
community confinement under the Second Chance Act. See McCarthy v. Ebbert, Civ. No.
-2-

1:15-0642 (M.D. Pa.) (Caldwell, J.); McCarthy v. Warden USP Lewisburg, Civ. No. 1:151023 (M.D. Pa.) (Caldwell, J.); McCarthy v. Ebbert, Civ. No. 1:15-1374 (M.D. Pa.)
(Caldwell, J.); McCarthy v. Ebbert, Civ. No. 1:15-1685 (M.D. Pa.) (Caldwell, J.) McCarthy
v. Ebbert, Civ. No. 1:15-1912 (M.D. Pa.) (Caldwell, J.); McCarthy v. Ebbert, Civ. No. 1:151913 (M.D. Pa.) (Caldwell, J.); McCarthy v. Warden USP Lewisburg, Civ. No. 1:16-0007
(M.D. Pa.) (Caldwell, J.).

II.

Discussion
In pertinent part, Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 42 authorizes the court to consolidate

actions involving “a common question of law or fact.” Rule 42(a). Consolidation is a
matter of discretion. Borough of Olyphant v. PPL Corp., 153 F. App’x 80, 82 (3d Cir.
2005)(nonprecedential) (“A district court has broad discretion when determining whether
consolidation is appropriate.”) .
In all seven Petitions, McCarthy alleges the BOP is denying him
“appropriate” and “fair” consideration for one year of pre-release community confinement
under the Second Chance Act because of “who he is” and his unlawful placement in the
SMU. All of the petitions were filed while McCarthy was housed at USP-Lewisburg; thus
the respondent for each action is the same. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 43435, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 2717-18, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004). Since all seven actions contain
common questions of law or fact, this court will consolidate the seven petitions pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and will proceed with the consolidated matter under Civ. No. 1:1500642, the action filed first.
-3-

Since a community corrections center (CCC) is materially different from
prison confinement, McCarthy may challenge the failure to place him in a CCC under
section 2241 as a challenge to the execution of his sentence. Woodall v. Federal Bureau
of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 243-44 (3d Cir. 2005). However, McCarthy’s challenge to his
SMU placement is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Release from the SMU would not
alter McCarthy’s sentence or undo his conviction; at most it would result in his placement
in general population. See Cardona v. Thompson, 551 F. App’x 630, 632 (3d Cir.
2013)(nonprecedential) (federal inmate’s claims challenging SMU placement are
“‘conditions of confinement’ claims because the relief he seeks would not alter his
sentence or undo his conviction.”); Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533, 534 (3d Cir. 2012).
Therefore, the SMU claim is not properly asserted in a habeas petition brought pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Instead, it has to be pursued through the filing of a Bivens action.1
Accordingly, this claim will be dismissed from the consolidated action.
An appropriate Order follows.

/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

Date: February 22, 2016

1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

-4-