Nelson v. United States of America

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION: Accordingly, the Court finds it is without jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this matter is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 05/09/2019. (Copy of Memorandum mailed to Arthur Nelson) (AMP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
ARTHUR A NELSON,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:18-CV-00012-JRG-CLC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently before the Court is an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1] filed pro se by Arthur A. Nelson (“Petitioner”). The record indicates that
Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).
Petitioner is confined at McDowell County Federal Correctional Institution in Welch, West
Virginia (“F.C.I. McDowell”), serving a sentence imposed in March 2007, by the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee in Greeneville for his conviction of “possession
of a firearm and/or ammo by a felon and convicted felon in possession of a firearm and/or ammo”
[Doc. 1 at 1]. Petitioner filed for this writ of habeas corpus claiming violations of his Eighth
Amendment and due process rights for the denial of his requested transfer to a residence in Utah
[Doc. 1]. Petitioner, however, cannot seek this redress through a writ of habeas corpus.
Typically, the writ of habeas corpus is used to free an inmate from unlawful custody.
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484–85 (1973). Courts have extended the writ, under certain
circumstances, to allow a prisoner to challenge his transfer to a more restrictive confinement. See
United States v. Harris, 12 F.3d 735, 736 (7th Cir.1994). In accordance with Graham v. Broglin,
922 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1991):

If the prisoner is seeking what can fairly be described as a quantum change in the
level of custody—whether outright freedom, or freedom subject to the limited
reporting and financial constraints of bond or parole or probation, or the run of the
prison in contrast to the approximation to solitary confinement that is disciplinary
segregation—then habeas corpus is his remedy. But if he is seeking a different
program or location or environment, then he is challenging the conditions rather
than the fact of his confinement and his remedy is under civil rights law[.]
Id. at 381. Here, Petitioner is challenging only his location within the BOP system and this Court
cannot provide the relief requested. 1 Accordingly, the Court finds it is without jurisdiction to
consider Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this matter is DISMISSED.
So ordered.
ENTER:

s/J. RONNIE GREER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The Court notes that this Court previously addressed this same issue in Petitioner’s
criminal case (United States of America v. Nelson, 2:08-CR-60 (E.D. Tenn. June 25, 2009). In his
previous criminal case, this Court dismissed Petitioner’s pro se motion to transfer his supervision
to Utah because such relief cannot be granted by this Court [See Nelson, 2:08-CR-60, Doc. 61].
2