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.

Eiland v. Hollingsworth

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

June 8, 2015

TYRRELL L. J. EILAND, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN J. HOLLINGSWORTH, Respondent.

Tyrell L. J. Eiland, F.C.I. Fort Dix, Fort Dix, NJ, Petitioner Pro se.

OPINION

NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge.

On or about April 29, 2015, Tyrell L. J. Eiland, a prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey, filed this request for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241. (ECF No. 1). On April 30, 2015, this Court denied Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis and the action was administratively terminated. (ECF No. 3). On or about May 9, 2015, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee and the case was reopened. The Court has reviewed the Petition and, for the reasons that follow, it will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

I. BACKGROUND

The Petition is based on four separate grounds for relief. First, Petitioner contends that he is receiving inadequate medical care. With respect to this allegation, Petitioner states that he arrived at FCI Fort Dix with a pre-existing condition which requires specialized care. (Pet. 7, ECF No. 1). Although Petitioner does not provide specific information regarding his condition, he contends that his medications were late, that appointments have not been made and, generally, that his medical condition is becoming worse. Id.

As his second ground for relief, Petitioner alleges that the prison conditions constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Id. More specifically, he contends that the prison is overcrowded and unclean to the point of posing a health and security risk to inmates. Petitioner also briefly alleges that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") miscalculated his sentence and custody level.

As his third ground for relief, petitioner asserts that his due process rights were violated when, as retaliation for grievance reports filed by Petitioner, a prison official issued an incident report that carried with it severe sanctions and penalties. Id.

Finally, Petitioner alleges that he was sexually assaulted by another inmate. Id. at 8. He contends that prison officials ignored his report and that proper protocol was not followed. Petitioner states that the regional office granted his appeal, in part, but that only an "interrogation" has come as a result. In light of the attachments to his Petition, it appears that an investigation is ongoing. (Pet. 18, Letter from Regional Director, Apr. 7, 2015, ECF No. 1).

Petitioner requests relief in the form of "immediate release from custody at Fort Dix, grant full gratuity, clothing, and transportation to Nevada."

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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 must be construed liberally. See Hunterson v. Disabato, 308 F.3d 236, 243 (3d Cir. 2002). Nevertheless, a federal district court can dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the petitioner is ...


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.