Green v. Federal Bureau of Prison
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER: Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 6/3/2020) (pef)
Case 4:20-cv-00563-P Document 4 Filed 06/03/20
Page 1 of 3 PageID 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
VINCENT ALEXANDER GREEN,
Petitioner,
VS.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-563-P
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by
Petitioner, Vincent Alexander Green, a federal prisoner, against the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, Respondent. After having considered the petition and relief sought by Petitioner, the
Court has concluded that the petition should be summarily dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner is serving a 180-month term of imprisonment for his 2017 conviction for
possession of a firearm by a felon in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Georgia. See J., United States v. Green, PACER, U.S. Party/Case Index, Criminal Docket
for # 4:16-cr-00059-LGW-CLR-1, ECF No. 56. In this skeletal § 2241 petition, Petitioner
complains of “excessive administrative detention” and “excessive mental distress” resulting
from placement on suicide prevention on several occasions. Pet. 5, ECF No. 1. He seeks
release to the general population or transfer to the designated institution in the judgment in
Case 4:20-cv-00563-P Document 4 Filed 06/03/20
Page 2 of 3 PageID 16
his criminal case and monetary damages for “the violation on [his] 8th Amendment.” Id. at
7.
II. DISCUSSION
Title 28, United State Code, section 2243 authorizes a district court to summarily
dismiss a frivolous habeas-corpus petition prior to any answer or other pleading by the
government.1 Therefore, no service has issued upon Respondent.
A petition for habeas relief is the proper procedural vehicle when challenging the fact
or duration of an inmate’s incarceration which would result in an accelerated release from
illegal confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Conversely, the Fifth
Circuit holds that habeas petitions are not the proper procedural vehicle when challenging
the conditions of an inmate’s confinement, which, in this case, include continued housing in
administrative segregation and placement on suicide prevention. Id. at 499; Schipke v. Van
Buren, 239 Fed. App’x 85, 2007 WL 2491065, at *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 30, 2007). Instead,
challenges to the conditions of confinement by federal inmates, whether an inmate seeks
monetary damages or injunctive relief, must be brought in a civil-rights complaint under
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), on the appropriate civil
1
Section 2243, governing applications for writ of habeas corpus, provides:
A Court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus
shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show
cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application
that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.
28 U.S.C. § 2243 (emphasis added).
2
Case 4:20-cv-00563-P Document 4 Filed 06/03/20
Page 3 of 3 PageID 17
complaint form against the responsible officials. Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643
(2004).
Therefore, taken at face value, the petition relating to the conditions of Petitioner’s
confinement is not cognizable on habeas review, and the petition should be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this 3rd day of June, 2020.
Mark T. Pittman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?