The opinion of the court was delivered by: FREDA WOLFSON, Magistrate Judge
Petitioner Paul G. Einstman, a prisoner currently confined at
the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Dix, New Jersey, has
submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241.*fn1 The Respondents are the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, Harley Lappin, and Warden John Nash. Because it appears from a review of the Petition that
Petitioner is not entitled to issuance of the writ, this Court
will dismiss the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
Petitioner was sentenced on July 14, 2004, to a term of
imprisonment of 18 months, pursuant to which he is currently
confined. Petitioner's projected release date is February 5,
2006. Petitioner has not been advised of his Pre-Release
Petitioner contends that the Bureau of Prisons' December 2002
policy governing pre-release transfer to Community Corrections
Centers is "illegal." Petitioner requests that the Court order
Respondents to immediately consider him for up to six months
pre-release placement in a CCC.
Petitioner contends that exhaustion of administrative remedies
would be futile.
II. STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
United States Code Title 28, Section 2243 provides in relevant
part as follows:
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. A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than more
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions
must be construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance.
See Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998); Lewis
v. Attorney General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22 (3d Cir. 1989);
United States v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969),
cert. denied, 399 U.S. 912 (1970). Nevertheless, a federal
district court can dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it appears
from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief. See Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 320 (1996);
Siers v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied,
490 U.S. 1025 (1989). See also 28 U.S.C. §§ 2243, 2255.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) and (c) in that Petitioner
challenges his custody, in this district, under the authority of
the United States and in violation of the laws of the United
States. See United States v. Ferri, 686 F.2d 147, 158 (3d
Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1211 (1983) (claims
attacking the execution of a petitioner's sentence are properly
brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). See also Kingsley v. Bureau
of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 (2d Cir. 1991) ("challenges to the length,
appropriateness or conditions of confinement are properly brought
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241").
Indeed, "Section 2241 of title 28 has long been recognized as
the basis for challenging the execution of the sentence of a
person in federal custody or a person sentenced for violating a
federal criminal statute." Zucker v. Menifee, 2004 WL 102779,
*3 (S.D.N.Y. January 21, 2004) (citing Maleng v. Cook,
490 U.S. 488, 493 (1989) (per curiam)). Additionally, this Court has the
authority to compel the BOP to exercise its authority to select
and designate a place for service of sentence. See McCarthy v.
Doe, 146 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 1998). Habeas corpus relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 is available to ...