United States District Court, D. New Jersey
B. KUGLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Gregory Lynn Morris, an inmate then incarcerated at FCI Fort
Dix, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241, purporting to challenge aspects of his
incarceration. For the following reasons, the Court will deny
the Petition, and deny Petitioner's motions to compel a
decision as moot.
case arises from the conditions of Petitioner's
incarceration while serving his sentence at FCI Fort-Dix and
other institutions. It appears that Petitioner was serving a
term of supervised release, when, in November of 2015, the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania sentenced Petitioner to a sixty-month term of
imprisonment, for conspiracy to possess and distribute
heroin. In December of 2015, the same court sentenced
Petitioner to, among other things, twenty months in prison to
run consecutively, for violating supervised release.
least two occasions, Petitioner sought admission into the
Bureau of Prisons' (“BOP”) Residential Drug
Abuse Program (“RDAP”). The BOP administers RDAP
as an intensive treatment program to reduce the risk of
relapse for participants. If a prisoner successfully
completes the program, the BOP may, in its
discretion, reduce a prisoner's sentence by up to one
year. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2); Anderson
v. Schultz, No. 09-4683, 2010 WL 5017352, at *2 (D.N.J.
Nov. 23, 2010).
appears that in February of 2016, Petitioner participated in
a RDAP diagnostic interview at FCI Berlin, in Berlin, New
Hampshire. At the interview, he “minimized his drug
abuse at th[e] time, ” stating that “he only took
one puff of marijuana and used cocaine only once in the prior
12 months.” (ECF No. 1-4, at 2). According to
Petitioner, he was “minimizing” and
“down-played” his drug usage because he
“was under intense supervision” while serving his
term of supervised release. (Id. at 2, 12).
part, because of Petitioner's statements, the
interviewing doctor found that Petitioner did not qualify for
“a substance use disorder diagnosis” and denied
him entry into the program. (ECF No. 5-5, at 21). Petitioner
implies that he does, in fact, have a substance use
disorder and contends that the interviewing doctor failed to
consider his two positive urine tests in the preceding twelve
months prior to his arrest.
October of 2016, the BOP transferred Petitioner to FCI Fort
Dix, where he again applied for entry into the RDAP.
Petitioner submitted additional documentation regarding his
two positive drug screens and other documentation. In
December of 2016, a different doctor refused to interview
Petitioner for RDAP due, in part, to Petitioner's earlier
statements minimizing his drug use at FCI Berlin. Petitioner
appealed these decisions through the administrative remedy
process and received a denial at each stage.
then filed the instant Petition requesting that the Court
declare him eligible for the RDAP. Respondent filed an
Answer, and Petitioner filed a Reply.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading
requirements.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S.
849, 856 (1994). A petition must “specify all the
grounds for relief” and set forth “facts
supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” 28
U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 2(c) (amended Dec. 1, 2004),
applicable to § 2241 petitions through Habeas Rule 1(b).
A court addressing a petition for 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
there.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
“[f]ederal courts . . . [may] dismiss summarily any
habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its
face.” McFarland, 512 U.S. at 856. More
specifically, a district court may “dismiss a [habeas]
petition summarily when it plainly appears from the face of
the petition and any exhibits . . . that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief.” Lonchar v. Thomas,
517 U.S. 314, 320 (1996).
28 U.S.C. § 2241, the “writ of habeas corpus shall
not extend to a prisoner unless . . . [h]e is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” “Challenges to the validity of
any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are
the province of habeas corpus” but prisoners may only
present “requests for relief turning on circumstances
of confinement . . . in a § 1983 [or Bivens]
action.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750
(2004) (citation omitted). Stated differently, a petitioner
may only bring a claim in a § 2241 petition if it
“would fall within the ...