Opinion
1:23-CV-305-SPB-RAL
02-06-2024
CHARLES TALBERT, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH SHAPIRO, Respondent
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) filed by state prisoner Charles Talbert (“Petitioner”) be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases because it plainly appears on its face that the Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief.
“Courts have used Rule 4 of the habeas corpus rules to summarily dismiss facially insufficient habeas petitions brought under § 2241.” Smith v. Harper, 2022 WL 4097652, at *1 (W.D. Pa. July 19, 2022) (collecting cases).
II. Report
A. Relevant Background
Petitioner, a state prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), initiated this pro se action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on September 15, 2023. ECF No. 1. On November 1, 2023, the matter was transferred to United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and assigned to the undersigned. ECF Nos. 7-8.
Talbert's Petition consists of a single sentence. He requests “an order to grant him habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241(c)(3), because the Defendants are keeping him confined in long-term disciplinary custody in violation of the United States Constitution.” ECF No. 1. In an accompanying memorandum of law, Petitioner states that DOC officials “have established and maintained an unlawful and unconstitutional practice of purposefully discriminating against inmates to whom suffer from serious mental health conditions, by allowing its staff members to punish them with long-term isolated confinement for the symptoms of their serious mental health conditions.” ECF No. 2 at p. 2. He seeks an order directing prison officials to transfer him to general population.
B. Discussion
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, this Court may dismiss a petition prior to service “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Id. Such is the case here.
As our Court of Appeals has repeatedly emphasized, “habeas corpus may not be used to challenge the conditions of [an inmate's] confinement.” Cardona v. Thompson, 551 Fed.Appx. 630, 632 (3d Cir. 2013); Learner v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002). This is because the “stringent standard for making out a habeas claim requires that a successful claim ‘would necessarily imply that [petitioner] would serve a shorter sentence.'” Talbert v. Harry, 2023 WL 6599209, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2023) (citing McGee v. Martinez, 621 F.3d 933, 936 (3d Cir. 2010)). In contrast, claims for any other relief arising from unconstitutional treatment by state actors must be brought in a § 1983 civil rights claim. See Bronson v. Demming, 56 Fed.Appx. 551, 553 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973) (“prisoners' claims relating to the States' alleged unconstitutional treatment of them while in confinement are more appropriately presented pursuant to § 1983.”)).
Here, Talbert is seeking an order directing prison officials to release him from solitary confinement. Courts - including in at least one of Talbert's prior cases - have consistently held that an inmate seeking a “transfer out of solitary confinement into the general prison population” must proceed pursuant to § 1983 rather than § 2241. See Talbert, 2023 WL 6599209, at *1 (“This category of claim, where ‘success for him would mean at most release into the general population' is precisely the situation that the Third Circuit has deemed suitable for a § 1983 claim and inapplicable to a habeas action.”). See also Cardona, 551 Fed.Appx. at 631 (challenge to placement in the Special Management Unit affected “the conditions of [inmate's] confinement and not the execution of his sentence”); Bronson, 56 Fed.Appx. at 553 (denying habeas relief where petitioner “wish[ed] to be released from one type of confinement to another.”). Because the relief sought by Talbert would not affect the fact or length of his conviction, his Petition must be dismissed.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot and that this case be closed. Pursuant to the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Civil Rules, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Failure to do so will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011).