GONZALEZ v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM A review of the record reveals that the challenged disciplinary proceeding is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Consequently, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice as to Gonzalez's ability to raise aclaim in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.An appropriate Order will be entered.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 12/1/14. (jfg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSE L. GONZALEZ,
Petitioner

v.

3: 14-CV-00887

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
WARDEN J.E. THOMAS

(JUDGE MARIANI)

Respondents

MEMORANDUM
Introduction
Jose L. Gonzalez, an inmate currently confined in the United States Penitentiary in
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). By Order dated April 8,
2014, this case was transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania as the proper venue.
(Doc. 2). Gonzalez claims that his due process rights were violated during the course of a
prison disciplinary hearing held on July 11, 2013, where he was found guilty of the
prohibited act of "Assaulting with Serious Injury." (Doc. 9, Ex. A). Specifically, he argues
that the Bureau of Prisons lacks authority to implement a monetary fine, and that there was
an excessive delay in serving a copy of the incident report. (Doc. 1). Gonzalez seeks
injunctive relief striking the monetary fine, and the immediate release of any seized funds.

Id. For the reasons set forth below, the petition will be dismissed.

I

f

f

I
,
!
f

\

Background

On March 13,2013, Gonzalez was served with Incident Report No. 2420518
charging him with assaulting with serious injury, a Code 101 violation. (Doc. 7, Ex. A, Att.
1). The Discipline Hearing Officer ("DHO") held a hearing on July 11, 2013. (Doc. 10, Ex.

C). On July 22, 2013, the DHO issued a decision finding that Gonzalez had committed the
prohibited act. Id. The DHO imposed sanctions that included: six days disciplinary
segregation, one year loss of commissary privileges, and a 'five hundred dollar fine. Id.

I

1

Gonzalez is currently serving a life sentence, and was not sanctioned with the loss of any

I
,

credit toward his sentence. (Doc. 7, Ex. A).

t

Respondent concedes that, after the DHO issued his decision, Gonzalez pursued
and exhausted all administrative remedies. (Doc. 7). On March 26, 2014, Gonzalez filed

I

this petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 1). On June 11,2014, Respondents filed a
response, arguing that the petition should be dismissed. (Doc. 9). On June 23,2014,
Gonzalez filed a traverse, rendering this matter ripe for disposition. (Doc. 10).
!

i

Discussion
Petitions for habeas corpus relief are "quite limited" and may only be brought to

I
i

challenge a conviction or a deprivation of rights that "necessarily impacts the fact or length
of detention." Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532,540 (3d Cir. 2002). Where a prisoner

I

seeks to challenge "the conditions of his prison life, but not ... the fact or length of his

I

custody[,]" the claim must be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not under a habeas petition.

t

i
l
r

2

f
(

I

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973). Consequently, where "a finding in plaintiffs
favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction[,]" the petitioner may not bring an
action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Leamer, 288 F.3d at 542.
Here, the disciplinary proceeding that Gonzalez challenges did not result in the loss
of any good conduct time. (Doc. 10, Ex. C). Furthermore, Gonzalez does not challenge the
length or duration of his imprisonment. (Doc. 1). Rather, Gonzalez seeks "injunctive relief
of obligation to pay the $500.00 and immediate release of seized funds." Id. The sanctions
imposed, a monetary fine, loss of commissary privileges, and disciplinary segregation, do
not impact the fact or duration of his imprisonment and thus are not properly brought under
a habeas petition. See, Torres v. Fauver, 292 F.3d 141, 150-51 (3d Cir. 2002); Reynolds v.

Williamson, 197 F.App'x 196, 198-99 (3d Cir. 2006). The proper remedy for the sanctions
imposed here is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore Gonzalez's petition for writ
of habeas corpus must be dismissed. 1

I
I

f
f

I
!
1 The

cases cited by Gonzalez in his traverse do nothing to alter this conclusion. (Doc. 10). The
three cases, all from the Eastern District of California, did involve a challenge to the power of certain
individuals to impose sanctions. Torres-Ramirez v. Benov, No.1 :13-CV-01165 LJO, 2013 WL 6798948
(ED. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013); Kasirem v. Benov, No. 1:13-CV-01026 LJO, 2013 WL 6798945 (E.D. Cal. Dec.
20,2013); Arellano v. Benov, No. 1:13-CV-00558 AWl, 2014 WL 1271530 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2014).
However, all three petitions challenged the loss of good conduct time, and thus were properly brought
Linder a habeas petition. Id. In contrast, as previously noted, here Gonzalez did not lose any good conduct
time.

3

(
[

i

I

I
,
,
i

I

f
,

I

i

Conclusion
A review of the record reveals that the challenged disciplinary proceeding is not
cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Consequently, the petition will be dismissed without
prejudice as to Gonzalez's ability to raise a claim in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
An appropriate Order will be entered.

Dated: December 1,2014

4