Hill v. Bureau of Prisons
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 8/28/2017. (slt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NATHAN L. HILL,
BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Civil Action No. 7:17cv00360
By: Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge
Nathan L. Hill, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that his security level was increased without due
process. After reviewing Hill’s petition, the court concludes that it must be summarily dismissed
without prejudice for failing to state a claim under § 2241.1
A habeas petition under § 2241 shall not issue to a federal prisoner unless the court
concludes that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The core of a habeas corpus action is a request to get out of jail
immediately, or sooner than currently scheduled. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489
(1973). “[C]onstitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions of a [federal] prisoner’s
confinement . . . fall outside of that core” and must be raised in a civil action, pursuant to Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Nelson v.
Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004); see also Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)
(“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the
province of habeas corpus,” whereas “requests for relief turning on circumstances of
confinement may be presented” in a civil rights action); Moore v. Driver, No. 1:07cv166, 2008
See Rules 1(b) and 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (allowing summary dismissal of habeas
petitions when it is clear from the face of the submissions that petitioner is not entitled to relief).
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85896, at *7, 2008 WL 4661478, at *3 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 21, 2008) (a claim
regarding custody classification cannot be raised in the context of a § 2241 petition).
In his § 2241 petition, Hill does not allege any ground on which he is entitled to a shorter
term of confinement; rather, he asks the court to order that he be returned to a Federal
Correctional Institution close to his hometown of Chicago. Because the core of his complaint is
clearly not concerning the fact or duration of his incarceration, his claim is not properly before
the court as a habeas claim under § 2241. Therefore, the court will dismiss Hill’s habeas petition
without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which the requested relief can be granted.2
An appropriate order will be entered.
Entered: August 28, 2017.
/s/ Elizabeth K. Dillon
Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge
The court declines to construe Hill’s petition as a complaint pursuant to Bivens because his allegations are
insufficient to state a claim against any defendant. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (to state a cause of action
under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that he has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the
Constitution or laws of the United States and that this deprivation resulted from conduct committed by a person
acting under color of state law). Further, courts have long held that a prison inmate has no interest of constitutional
magnitude in either his security classification or his place of confinement. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 34546 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976). The court notes, however, that dismissal of this § 2241
petition is without prejudice to Hill’s opportunity to file a Bivens action naming defendants and specifically
describing how each defendant violated his federal rights.
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?