United States District Court, D. New Jersey
APPEARANCE: Jaime Rodriguez, Petitioner Pro se
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Jaime Rodriguez, a prisoner presently incarcerated at the
Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) at Fort
Dix, in Fort Dix, New Jersey, filed this Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he seeks
to challenge the prison's policies regarding the
revocation of privileges and clothing storage. ECF No. 1. The
Petitioner has paid the required habeas filing
time, the Court will review the Petition pursuant to Rule 4
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, (amended Dec. 1,
2004), made applicable to § 2241 petitions through Rule
1(b) of the Habeas Rules. See also 28 U.S.C. §
2243. For the reasons expressed below, this Court will
dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.
raises two claims for relief in his Petition. First,
Petitioner seeks an end to what he describes as arbitrary
punishment inflicted upon Rodriguez and other inmates, in the
nature of the revocation of privileges, as a result of the
actions of only a few inmates. ECF No. 1, Pet. at 3.
Petitioner asserts that such punishment lacks constitutional
due process. Id. at 1. Petitioner's second claim
seeks to end the prison's “irrational and
unhygienic” requirement of storing outerwear such as
jackets and coats inside closed lockers instead of hanging
outside the locker on a hook, a practice permitted at other
BOP facilities. Id. at 2, 10. Petitioner argues that
such clothing becomes dirty and may foster the spread of
disease and parasites when it is stored inside the
inmate's locker along with clean clothing and food items.
Id. at 11. Further compounding the problem,
according to Petitioner, is that inmates are prohibited from
washing the jackets and other outerwear in the laundry
machines provided in an inmate's housing unit.
Id. at 5. Petitioner asserts that the policy related
to outerwear violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 2, 11.
States Code Title 28, Section 2243, provides in relevant part
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
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 not entitled to relief.
See Denny v. Schultz, 708 F.3d 140, 148 n.3 (3d Cir.
2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
habeas corpus relief is available only “where the
deprivation of rights is such that it necessarily impacts the
fact or length of detention.” Leamer v.
Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002). See
Bonadonna v. United States, 446 Fed.Appx. 407 (3d Cir.
2011). Petitioner's allegations regarding the revocation
of privileges and the outerwear policy do not “spell
speedier release, ” and thus does not lie at the
“‘the core of habeas corpus.'”
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005) (quoting
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973)).
See also Leamer, 288 F.3d at 542-44. Petitioner is
not seeking a speedier release from his incarceration.
Instead, he seeks only to change the policies at FCI Fort Dix
regarding the revocation of privileges and the storage of
outerwear, which he asserts are unconstitutional. Petitioner
must proceed through a civil rights action to challenge these
on the foregoing, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction
under § 2241 over the instant habeas petition. See
Bonadonna, 446 Fed.Appx. at 409 (affirming dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction of habeas petition that sought to
challenge prison's footwear policy). Whenever a civil
action is filed in a court that lacks jurisdiction,
“the court shall, if it is in the interests of justice,
transfer such action . . . to any other such court in which
the action . . . could have been brought at the time it was
filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The Court finds that it
is not in the interests of justice to transfer the Petition
because there ...