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 (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 2 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 3 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 4 Unpublished Opinion(s))(bs)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
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 1372409 (M.D.Pa.)
(Cite as: 2010 WL 1372409 (M.D.Pa.))

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
This decision was reviewed by West editorial staff
and not assigned editorial enhancements.
United States District Court,
M.D. Pennsylvania.
Roy Allen GREEN, Petitioner,
v.
Warden BLEDSOE, Respondent.
Civil No. 4:10–CV–0059.
April 5, 2010.
Roy Allen Green, Lewisburg, PA, pro se.
Mark Morrison, Dennis Pfannenschmidt, U.S. Attorney's
Office, Harrisburg, PA, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
JAMES F. McCLURE, JR., District Judge.
*1 Petitioner Roy Allen Green (“Petitioner” or
“Green”), an inmate presently confined at the United
States Penitentiary at Lewisburg (“USP Lewisburg”) in
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, initiated the above action pro se
by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus (“petition”)
under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He challenges
his placement in the Special Management Unit (“SMU”)
at USP Lewisburg. For the reasons set forth below, the
petition will be dismissed without prejudice to Green's
right to pursue his claims in a properly filed civil rights
action.
I. Background
In his petition, filed on January 11, 2010, Green
alleges that, on January 12, 2009, while he was an inmate
at the United States PenitentiaryVictorville (“USP
Victorville”) in Adelanto, California, he was given notice
of a hearing for referral to the SMU that was scheduled to
occur on January 14, 2009.FN1 (Rec. Doc. No. 1 at 4; Ex.
B, Rec. Doc. No. 1–2 at 8, Notice of Hearing.) Green

states that, following the January 14 hearing, he was
approved for placement into the SMU at USP Lewisburg,
where he currently is confined. (Rec. Doc. No. 1 at 5–6.)
He alleges that he was denied due process at the hearing
and complains that his disciplinary history was improperly
considered by the hearing officer in determining his
appropriateness for placement in the SMU. (Id. at 4–6.)
Green does not make any specific request for relief other
than the standard request on the form he utilized for
preparing his petition stating that “petitioner prays that the
court grant petitioner relief to which he may be entitled in
this proceeding.” (Id. at 8.)
FN1. The Notice explains that Green had been
referred for a hearing before a Hearing
Administrator to determine whether he should be
designated to the SMU, “to provide greater
management of your interaction with others.”
(Rec. Doc. No. 1–2 at 8.)
Service of the petition was directed by Order dated
February 3, 2010. (Rec.Doc. No. 4.) On February 17,
2010, Respondent filed a response arguing that the
petition should be dismissed because Green's claims
pertaining to his placement in the SMU are not cognizable
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Rec.Doc. No. 5.) Although
Green was given an opportunity to file a reply (see Rec.
Doc. No. 4), he chose not to do so. Accordingly, the
petition is ripe for disposition.
II. Discussion
The purpose of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is
to allow a person in custody to challenge either the fact or
duration of confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
475, 484, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); Leamer
v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir.2002). Federal
habeas relief is unavailable unless the petition attacks “the
validity of the continued conviction or the fact or length of
the sentence.” Leamer, 288 F.3d at 542.
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 Suggs v.
Bureau of Prisons, 2008 WL 2966740, at *4 (D.N.J. July

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

Page 2
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 1372409 (M.D.Pa.)
(Cite as: 2010 WL 1372409 (M.D.Pa.))

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 BivensFN2 action, the federal
counterpart to a § 1983 action, is appropriate.

END OF DOCUMENT

FN2. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403
U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).
*2 In the instant case, in challenging his placement in
the SMU and the hearing that led to the determination that
he was appropriate for SMU placement, Green is not
challenging the fact or duration of his confinement.
Further, a decision in his favor would not alter his
sentence or undo his conviction. Therefore, his claims are
not properly asserted in a § 2241 habeas petition, but
rather are more properly pursued through the filing of a
Bivens action. See Woodruff v. Williamson, Civil No.
3:CV–06–2310, 2009 WL 703200, at *5 (M.D.Pa. Mar.
12, 2009) (Caputo, J.) (dismissing portion of petitioner's
§ 2241 habeas petition challenging SMU placement as not
cognizable under § 2241); McKettrick v. Williamson, Civil
No. 4:CV–06–543, 2006 WL 1307919 (M.D.Pa. May 10,
2006) (McClure, J.) (same). Accordingly, the petition will
be dismissed without prejudice to Green's right to pursue
his claims in a properly filed civil rights action.FN3
FN3. 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.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Rec.Doc.
No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice to Green's right
to pursue his claims in a properly filed civil rights action.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
M.D.Pa.,2010.
Green v. Bledsoe
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 1372409 (M.D.Pa.)

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