McDaniel v. Ratledge et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION. READ OPINION for COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 05/25/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff.(ccol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

QASIM BILAL AL-AMIN BIN McDANIEL,

fl

p

L

IE

f MAY 25 2017 j
1

CLERK, U.S. DiSTfliCT COURl
RICHMOND. VA

Plaintiff,
V-

-\

Civil Action No. 3:16CV760

WARDEN C. RATLEDGE, et aL,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, a federal inmate, has submittedthis civil action. Plaintiff submitted this action

as petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241. "[T]he settled rules [provide] that
habeas corpus relief is appropriate only when a prisoner attacks the fact or duration of

confinement, jeePreiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); whereas, challenges to the
conditions ofconfinement that would not result in a definite reduction in the length of
confinement are properly brought" by some other procedural vehicle, Olajide v. B.I. C.E., 402 F.

Supp. 2d 688, 695 (E.D. Va. 2005) (emphasis omitted) (internal parallel citations omitted) (citing
Strader v. Troy, 571 F.2d 1263, 1269 (4th Cir. 1978)). In this action. Plaintiffchallenges his
conditions ofconfmement at United States Penitentiary Lee ("USP Lee"). The named

Defendants reside in the Western District ofVirginia, and the events giving rise tothe action are
alleged to have occurred in the Western District of Virginia.

By Memorandum Order entered on September 27,2016, the Court directed Plamtiff,

within eleven (11) days ofthe date ofentry thereof, to show good cause why this action should
not bedismissed without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing ofthis action as a civil action in the

United States District Court for the Western District ofVirginia. Plaintiffresponded. Plaintiff
also indicated that he was in the process ofbeing transferred to USP Canaan in Pennsylvania.
(ECF No. 4.)

"Once an inmate is removed from the environment in which he is subjected to the

challenged policy or practice, absent aclaim for damages, he no longer has alegally cognizable
mterest in ajudicial decision on the merits ofthe claim." Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281,287
(4th Cir. 2007) (holding transfer or release moots claim for injunctive relief).' Because Plaintiff
sought injunctive relieffor the conditions at USP Lee and he has now been transferred, it appears
the action is moot. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on February 27,2017, the

Court directed Plaintiff, within eleven (11) days ofthe date ofentry thereof, to show good cause
why this action should not be dismissed as moot. The Court explained that Plaintiffmust also
Identify the statute or rule that governs this action. The Court directed that ifPlaintifffailed to
comply with the above directives, the Court would construe the action as acivil rights action and
would dismiss the action as moot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

After the Court granted aseries ofrequests for extension oftune, Plaintiffhas now

responded to the Court's February 27,2017 Order. PlaintifFs Response dearly establishes that
Plaintiffis challenging his diet, actions ofemployees ofUSP Lee, and other conditions of

confinement during his previous confinement in USP Lee whete he is no longer housed. Thus,

his action could only be properly brought as acivil rights action puisuant to Bivens,^ and may not
be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. As Plaintiffis now incarcerated in USP Canaan, he

J As the Court explained in its February 27,2017 Memotandum Orfer, to the extent that

Plaintiffseeks damages, he may not do so by way of28 U.S.C. §2241.
(1971).

^Bivens v. Six Unknown NamedAgents ofthe FederalBureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388

fails to demonstrate good cause as to why the action should not be dismissed as moot.

Accordmgly, the Court construes this action as acivil rights action, and will dismiss the action as
MOOT.

An appropriate Order shall issue.

M. Hannah

United State! li^sWict Judge

m 2 5 2017,

Richmond, Virginia