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 (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 2 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 3 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 4 Unpublished Opinion(s))(bs)

Page 1
393 Fed.Appx. 32, 2010 WL 3511507 (C.A.3 (Pa.))
(Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter)
(Cite as: 393 Fed.Appx. 32, 2010 WL 3511507 (C.A.3 (Pa.)))

This case was not selected for publication in the Federal
Reporter.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter See Fed.
Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing
citation of judicial decisions issued on or after Jan. 1,
2007. See also Third Circuit LAR, App. I, IOP 5.7.
(Find CTA3 App. I, IOP 5.7)
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Andrew BEDENFIELD, Appellant
v.
Warden LEWISBURG.
No. 10-1750.
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
Aug. 19, 2010.
Filed: Sept. 9, 2010.
Background: Federal prisoner petitioned for writ of
habeas corpus, alleging prison officials violated his due
process rights by failing to hold disciplinary hearing
before placing him in the special management unit. The
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, Malcolm Muir, J., denied petition, and
prisoner appealed.
Holding: The Court of Appeals held that prisoner's claim
was not cognizable on habeas review.
Affirmed.
West Headnotes
Habeas Corpus 197

513

197 Habeas Corpus
197II Grounds for Relief; Illegality of Restraint

197II(B) Particular Defects and Authority for
Detention in General
197k512 Nature and Place of Confinement
197k513 k. Limitations and conditions;
treatment and discipline. Most Cited Cases
Claim alleging prison officials violated federal
prisoner's due process rights by failing to hold disciplinary
hearing before placing him in prison's special management
unit challenged condition of confinement, rather than basic
fact or duration of imprisonment, and thus prisoner's claim
was not cognizable on habeas review, since finding in
prisoner's favor would not alter his sentence or undo his
conviction. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; 28 U.S.C.A. §
2241.
*32 On Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No.
09-cv-02264), District Judge: Honorable Malcolm
Muir.Andrew Bedenfield, Lewisburg, PA, pro se.
Stephen R. Cerutti, II, Esq., Mark E. Morrison, Esq.,
Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for
Warden Lewisburg.
Before: BARRY, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
**1 Petitioner Andrew Bedenfield, an inmate
currently incarcerated at USP Lewisburg, appeals pro se
from the District Court's dismissal of his petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because
we conclude that this appeal presents no substantial
question, we will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R.
27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
In the petition, Bedenfield claimed that prison
officials failed to hold a disciplinary hearing after he was
allegedly involved in a gang fight at USP Atwater. As a
result of his involvement in the fight, he was placed in the
“Special Management Unit” *33 (“SMU”) at USP

© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 2
393 Fed.Appx. 32, 2010 WL 3511507 (C.A.3 (Pa.))
(Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter)
(Cite as: 393 Fed.Appx. 32, 2010 WL 3511507 (C.A.3 (Pa.)))

Lewisburg.FN1 He argues that the prison officials' failure to
hold a disciplinary hearing violated his due process rights,
and further claims that he does not meet the criteria for
placement in the SMU.
FN1. Bedenfield's projected release date from
prison is October 20, 2012, via good conduct
time release.
The respondent filed a response to the petition,
arguing that the petition should be dismissed because
Bedenfield's claims are not cognizable under § 2241. The
District Court agreed and dismissed the petition.
Bedenfield filed a timely appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Our review of the District Court's decision to dismiss
Bedenfield's § 2241 petition is plenary. See Cradle v. U.S.
ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir.2002).
Bedenfield's habeas petition does not challenge the basic
fact or duration of his imprisonment, which is the “essence
of habeas.” See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484,
498-99, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). “[W]hen
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, [a civil rights action] is appropriate.”
Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir.2002)
(dismissing civil rights action because claims should have
been brought in a habeas petition). 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. Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d
235, 243 (3d Cir.2005). He has not raised a claim that
involves the execution of his sentence. See id. at 243-44.
Thus, we agree with the District Court that his claim is a
challenge that should be brought in an action under Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619
(1971).FN2 See id. at 241-42; Leamer, 288 F.3d at 542.

e.g., Griffin v. Vaughn, 112 F.3d 703, 706 (3d
Cir.1997) (15 months in administrative
segregation did not implicate a liberty interest);
Fraise v. Terhune, 283 F.3d 506, 522-23 (3d
Cir.2002) (transfer to Security Threat Group
Management Unit “STGMU”), through which
gang leaders are identified, isolated, and
reprogrammed before release back into the
general population, does not implicate protected
liberty interest.
Because the appeal does not present a substantial
question, we will summarily affirm the District Court's
order dismissing the petition without prejudice. See 3d
Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
C.A.3 (Pa.),2010.
Bedenfield v. Lewisburg
393 Fed.Appx. 32, 2010 WL 3511507 (C.A.3 (Pa.))
END OF DOCUMENT

FN2. We note that the District Court considered
that even if Bedenfield brings his claims in a
Bivens action, he is not likely to prevail. See,

© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.