The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bumb, District Judge
Petitioner Richard Eugene Warren initially filed this matter in the United States District Court, District of South Carolina. Upon Report and Recommendation by Joseph R. McCrorey, United States Magistrate Judge, the matter was transferred to the District of New Jersey because Petitioner had been transferred to a federal correctional facility within this district. Petitioner has subsequently been transferred out of the district.
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.
Petitioner brings this section 2241 habeas corpus action as a challenged to the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Financial Responsibility Program ("IFRP"). Specifically, Petitioner states that he "was forced to execute a IFRP contract by counselor Michael Cox under the threat of being placed on IFRP refusal status" if he did not comply. He states that he provided his signature under duress and that his account now has an ongoing debit of $25.00. He seeks entry of an order placing him on "IFRP exempt status," seeks a restraining order against retaliation, and seeks reimbursement of the funds previously deducted from his account.
In their response, Respondents provided the Court with information regarding a substantially similar petition filed by Petitioner on May 21, 2010 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. That petition, which concerned the same issues presented here, was dismissed without prejudice on September 22, 2011 because Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Section 2241 provides in relevant part:
(a) Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.
(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless-- ... (3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States ... .
A habeas corpus petition is the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the "fact or duration" of his confinement, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 (1973), including challenges to prison disciplinary proceedings that affect the length of confinement, such as deprivation of good time credits, Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). See also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (2005). Habeas corpus is an appropriate mechanism, also, for a federal prisoner to challenge the execution of his sentence. See Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485-86 (3d Cir. 2001); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79 (3d Cir. 1990). In addition, where a prisoner seeks a "quantum change" in the level of custody, for example, where a prisoner claims to be entitled to probation or bond or parole, habeas is the appropriate form of action. See, e.g., Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1991) and cases cited therein. "Section 2241 is the only statute that confers habeas jurisdiction to hear the petition of a federal prisoner who is challenging not the validity but the execution of his sentence." Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485-86 (3d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). A petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district where the prisoner is confined provides a remedy "where petitioner challenges the effects of events 'subsequent' to his sentence." Gomori v. Arnold, 533 F.2d 871, 874 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 851 (1976) (finding jurisdiction where prisoner challenged erroneous computation of release date). See also Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2007) (finding jurisdiction where prisoner challenged BOP's failure to give credit for time served prior to federal sentence); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79 (3d Cir. 1991) (finding jurisdiction where prisoner challenged BOP refusal to decide whether to designate state prison as a place of serving federal sentence); Soyka v. Allredge, 481 F.2d 303 (3d Cir. 1973) (finding jurisdiction where petitioner alleged a claim for credit for time served prior to federal sentencing).
Convicted and sentenced prisoners retain the protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that the government may not deprive them of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249 (1971). A liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause may arise from either of two sources: the Due Process Clause itself or from state or federal law. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466 (1983); Asquith v. Department of Corrections, 186 F.3d 407, 409 (3d Cir. 1999).
Petitioner brings this application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the actions of the Bureau of Prisons with respect to the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. The challenges brought in the instant petition where previously brought in a similar petition filed by Petitioner in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. That petition was dismissed ...