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.

Anthony White v. Warden

July 14, 2011

ANTHONY WHITE, PETITIONER,
v.
WARDEN, RESPONDENT.



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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

Petitioner Anthony White, 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. The respondent is the warden of the FCI Fort Dix.

Based upon the record presented to this Court, the petition will be denied.

BACKGROUND

While housed at the Federal Prison Camp ("FPC") in Ashland, Kentucky, Petitioner was found in possession of a cell phone, resulting in disciplinary proceedings at that facility. Petitioner was charged with having committed a prohibited act at the Greatest Severity Level, and sanctions were imposed.

On September 9, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in this Court, as he is currently housed at FCI Fort Dix, and this District Court is within the district of his confinement. In his petition, Petitioner argues that his due process rights were violated because he had not been given notice that the cell phone violation would be charged and sanctioned at the Greatest Severity level. He also argues that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") violated the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") in changing the rule, that the rule is vague, and that his equal protection rights were violated as he was sanctioned differently than similarly situated inmates.

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on November 15, 2010 (docket entry 8), and Petitioner filed a Reply (docket entry 12), a Supplemental Declaration (docket entry 13), and a Request to Expedite Ruling (docket entry 14). Amongst other things, Respondent argued in the answer that the petition was moot, because Petitioner's disciplinary proceedings were remanded for a new hearing.

On November 19, 2010, after the answer was filed, Respondent filed a letter and declaration (docket entry 10). The letter noted that the rehearing of Petitioner's disciplinary hearing had taken place on November 18, 2010. Petitioner's charges were downgraded to a 300 series offense, Possession of Anything Unauthorized, and his sanctions were lowered accordingly.

Petitioner's reply concedes that his sanctions were in fact lowered. However, Petitioner argues that he was transferred to FCI Fort Dix, from the FPC Ashland, Kentucky, as a disciplinary transfer. Fort Dix is a higher security facility than Ashland. Petitioner asks to be returned to a minimum security camp, as opposed to the low security prison of FCI Fort Dix.

DISCUSSION

A. Pro Se Pleadings

The Court recognizes that a pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Thus, a pro se habeas petition should 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). Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se in his ...


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.