Amsden v. Ebbert et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Kyle Ray Amsden Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 2/21/14. (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 2 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 3 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 4 Unpublished Opinion(s))(bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KYLE RAY AMSDEN,

:

Petitioner

:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-0221

v.

:
(Judge Mannion)

DAVID EBBERT, Warden

:

Respondent

:

MEMORANDUM
I.

Background
Petitioner, Kyle Ray Amsden, an inmate currently confined in the

Canaan United States Penitentiary (“USP-Canaan”), Waymart, Pennsylvania,
filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. (Doc.
No. 1, petition). He challenges his continued placement in the Special
Management Unit (“SMU”) at USP-Canaan. Id. Specifically, Petitioner states
that he has been “erroneously designated a ‘sex offender’ by the Bureau of
Prisons which is reflected on his classification form(s)”, and that his “ongoing
confinement to ‘Seg’ at USP-Canaan amounts to cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment and federal law.” Id. As relief,
he seeks to be “re-classified to a lower security facility.” Id. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court will dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

II.

Discussion
Habeas corpus petitions are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to

Rule 4 (“Preliminary Review; Serving the Petition and Order”) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C.
foll. §2254 (1977) (applicable to §2241 petitions through Rule 1(b)). See,
e.g., Patton v. Fenton, 491 F.Supp. 156, 158–59 (M.D.Pa.1979). Rule 4
provides, in pertinent part, “If it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,
the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”
A petition may be dismissed without review of an answer “when the petition
is frivolous, or obviously lacking in merit, or where ... the necessary facts can
be determined from the petition itself.” Allen v. Perini, 26 Ohio Misc. 149, 424
F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 906 (1970). The Allen court
also stated that “the District Court has a duty to screen out a habeas corpus
petition which should be dismissed for lack of merit on its face.” Id.
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).
Moreover, in Levi v. Ebbert, 353 Fed. Appx. 681, 682 (3d Cir.2009), the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concisely stated that
claims concerning the determination of a federal prisoner’s custody level “do
not lie at the ‘core of habeas’ and, therefore are not cognizable in a §2241
petition.” The Court of Appeals observed that habeas corpus review should
not be undertaken because the custody classification claims asserted did not
challenge the fact or length of the prisoner’s confinement. See id. Levi also
correctly noted that prisoners simply “have no constitutional right to a
particular classification.” Id. See also Schwarz v. Meinberg, 2011 WL
2470122 *2 (C.D. Ca. May 31, 2011) (custody classification claims by federal
inmate not cognizable on habeas review).
In the instant case, Petitioner’s challenges to his continued placement
in the SMU 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. He does not seek release from prison, nor does
he seek to be released sooner from prison. Rather, Petitioner complains that
his erroneous classification as a sex offender has resulted in his placement
and continued confinement in the SMU at USP–Canaan, which violates his

3

constitutional rights. This placement, however, does not affect the length of
his sentence. Significantly, Petitioner does not seek relief that would shorten
the length of his current sentence and incarceration in prison. Nor does he
seek release from prison by attacking the legality of his judgment or
conviction. Therefore, his claims are not properly asserted in a habeas
petition brought under 28 U.S.C. §2241, but rather must be pursued through
the filing of a Bivens1 action. 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 v. Bledsoe, 2010 WL 1372409, at *2 (M.D. Pa. April
5, 2010)(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).
Accordingly, the claims in the instant petition are not appropriate under a
§2241 petition and will be dismissed.

III.

Certificate of Appealability

1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
4

Section 102 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (28
U.S.C. §2253 (as amended)) codified standards governing the issuance of a
certificate of appealability for appellate review of a district court’s disposition
of a habeas petition. Federal prisoner appeals from the denial of a §2241
habeas corpus proceeding are not governed by the certificate of appealability
requirement. United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 264–65 (3d Cir.
2000)(en banc) (certificate of appealability not required to appeal from denial
of §2241 petition), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler,
–––U.S. ––––, ––––, 132 S.Ct. 641, 649, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012); Kornegay
v. Ebbert, 502 Fed.Appx. 131, 133 (3d Cir. 2012). Thus, the Court need not
address this issue in the current action.

IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus

will be DISMISSED. An appropriate order will follow.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: February 21, 2014
O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2014 MEMORANDA\14-0221-01.wpd

5