Johnson v. Stewart

Filing 12

ORDER adopting 9 Report and Recommendations, denying 1 2241 Petition and ordering this case dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 5/3/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(jss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
STEVEN GLEN JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12CV1
(Judge Keeley)

TIMOTHY STEWART, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 4, 2012, the pro se petitioner, inmate Steven Glenn
Johnson (“Johnson”), filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(dkt. no. 1) alleging that he is being subjected to cruel and
unusual punishment, due process violations, and substandard living
conditions at FCI Morgantown. The Court referred this matter to
United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull for initial screening
and a report and recommendation in accordance with LR PL P 2.
Magistrate Judge Kaull issued an Opinion and Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) on January 19, 2012, in which he recommended
the petitioner’s § 2241 petition be denied and dismissed without
prejudice. (Dkt. No. 9). Specifically, Magistrate Judge Kaull
determined that Johnson’s petition challenges the conditions of his
confinement, not the execution of his sentence, and as such raises
claims that should have been brought in a civil rights complaint.
Johnson filed objections to the R&R on January 31, 2012. In
essence,

Johnson

argues

that

Magistrate

Judge

Kaull

has

misconstrued his petition and that his claims are properly brought

JOHNSON V. STEWART

1:12CV1

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
under

§

2241.

After

conducting

a

de

novo

review,

the

Court

concludes that these objections are without merit.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 is the
proper method to challenge the execution of a federal sentence.
United States v. Little, 392 F.3d 671, 679 (4th Cir. 2004) (citing
In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n. 5 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc)). A
civil rights action, however, is the proper vehicle to challenge
“the conditions of [a prisoner’s] prison life, but not [] the fact
or length of his custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499
(1973); see also Warman v. Philips, No. 1:08CV217, 2009 WL 2705833,
at *3 (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 25, 2009) (holding that it is well
established that a § 2241 petition “may not be used to challenge
[an] inmate's conditions of confinement”).
Here, Johnson is not entitled to relief under § 2241 because
he is not challenging the execution of his sentence. Rather, he
challenges the specific conditions of his confinement, including
(1) denial of telephone privileges, (2) denial of furlough, (3)
denial of legal mail/effects, (4) denial of access to law library,
and

(5)

denial

of

proper

medical

care.

Such

claims

are

not

cognizable in a § 2241 proceeding and should have been brought in
a civil rights action. As such, the Court OVERRULES Johnson’s
objections.
For the reasons discussed, the Court:
2

JOHNSON V. STEWART

1:12CV1

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
1.

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety
(dkt. no. 9);

2.

DENIES Johnson’s § 2241 petition (dkt. no. 1); and

3.

ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and
STRICKEN from the docket of this Court.

If the petitioner should desire to appeal the decision of this
Court, written notice of appeal must be received by the Clerk of
this Court within thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of
the Judgment Order, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
It is so ORDERED.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court directs the Clerk of
Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies of
both orders to counsel of record and to the pro se petitioner,
certified mail, return receipt requested.
Dated: May 3, 2012.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3