United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Turner, Petitioner Pro Se.
B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge.
Turner, a federal prisoner confined at FCI Fort Dix, New
Jersey, filed this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Docket Entry 1. Based on
the affidavit of indigency, the application to proceed in
forma pauperis shall be granted. For the reasons
expressed below, the petition shall be dismissed for lack of
requesting a writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner asks the Court
for a “review of the safety, health, sanitation,
environment conditions rated capacity space ‘per
inmate', & the contaminated inmates [sic] drinking
water, ” at Fort Dix. Petition at 1 (emphasis omitted).
He alleges former Warden Jordan Hollingsworth and present
Warden D. Ortiz “‘are knowingly continuing
to' ignore & violate the required minimum 60 sq. ft.,
of unencumbered space ‘per inmate', in violation of
P.S. 1060.11.” Id. ¶ 8 (emphasis
alleges the conditions of his confinement at Fort Dix violate
the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishment “because of the imminent danger(s), fire
hazard(s), safety concerns(s), sanitation, environment
conditions, & each inmates required, & violated 60
sq. ft., & the serious mental, emotional, & physical
deterioration, inter alia, that have been unlawfully, &
unconstitutional [sic] implemented by the named Respondents .
. . .” Id. ¶ 15. “All of the
housing units, & several other buildings at [Fort Dix],
‘are' at minimum 50 years old, some with roof
leaks, many, if not all have mold covering the restroom area
wall(s), ceilings, & shower floors (WHICH ARE PAINTED
WHEN ANY OUTSIDERS VISIT [FORT DIX]), shower drains clogged
up at times for days . . . of which said leaks are mostlikely
[sic] shower water waste, & stool, and/or urine waste . .
. .” Id. ¶ 19 (emphasis omitted). He
further alleges it “‘is always warm' during
the summer weather” and the units are not properly air
conditioned. Id. (emphasis omitted). “These
facts are besides each inmates, including correction officers
‘being exposed to asbestos' in said housing units,
& inhaling jet fuel fumes, inter alia, depending on the
wind direction.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
further alleges that “[o]ne of the greatest issues
suffered by the inmates at [Fort Dix], ‘is the
overcrowding', & the violated 60 sq. ft., of
unencumbered space ‘per inmate, inter alia.'”
Id. ¶ 25 (emphasis omitted). He generally
alleges that the conditions of his and other inmates'
confinement violate the Eighth Amendment, and that the
wardens have intentionally ignored the situation as they
“‘are only interested' in the revenue stream
from the overcrowding at [Fort Dix]” and have gone so
far as to falsify the “rated capacity forms” sent
to the Bureau of Prisons regional director. Id.
¶¶ 20, 22 (emphasis omitted).
petition asks the Court to intervene in the housing situation
and to direct Fort Dix to test its water supply. Id.
¶ 28. He requests that “until said corrections,
health, & safety issues, inter alia, ‘are
completely corrected', each inmate shall be entitled to
receive three (3) days for every one (1) day served at [Fort
Dix], due to the overcrowding occupancy housing unit max,
health, & safety issues . . . .” Id.
submitted his petition on December 15, 2016 along with a
motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, docketed as a
civil complaint in Civil Action No. 16-9493. The Court wrote
to Petitioner asking whether he intended the motion to be
filed with his § 2241 or if he intended it to be filed
as a separate action. Court's January 5, 2017 Letter,
Docket Entry 2. Petitioner responded to the Court and
requested that the TRO be filed in his habeas matter.
Application to Consolidate, Docket Entry 3.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus as a pro se
litigant. 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
a federal district court must dismiss a habeas corpus
petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rule 4 (made applicable by Rule 1(b)); see also McFarland
v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Siers ...