Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

John Briley v. Department of Justice

January 21, 2011

JOHN BRILEY, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kubler, District Judge

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

Petitioner John Briley, a prisoner currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fairton, New Jersey, has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241*fn1 and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The respondents are the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons.*fn2

Based on Petitioner's affidavit of indigence, this Court will grant Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because it appears from a review of the Petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Petition will be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner asserts that he is confined pursuant to a judgment entered April 8, 2010, revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of one year and one day. See United States v. Briley, Criminal No. 08-0395 (E.D. Ark.). His anticipated release date is February 11, 2011.

Here, Petitioner contends that, because of his short term of imprisonment, he has been wrongfully denied participation in various prison programs, including college courses, vocational education programs, the Edward Byrne Justice Assistant Grant Program, the Federal Prisoner Re-entry Program, 42 U.S.C. § 17541, and the Bureau of Prisons Federal Prisoner Discharge Gratuity of $500.

Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court compelling the Bureau of Prisons to provide Petitioner with access to these various prison programs, prior to and following his release.

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.

III. ANALYSIS

This Petition must be dismissed for lack of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.