Opinion
Civil Action 1:23-CV-425
12-11-2023
EMILIO CHAVEZ, JR. v. WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner Emilio Chavez, Jr., a prisoner currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brings this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner seeks a compassionate release from prison.
The petition was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Discussion
Petitioner states that he is suffering from a terminal illness. He filed this habeas petition seeking a compassionate release from prison. A petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the appropriate means for a prisoner to challenge his incarceration if he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A request for compassionate release is not cognizable in a § 2241 petition because it concerns the medical needs of a prisoner, not unconstitutional or illegal confinement. Figueroa v. Chapman, 347 Fed.Appx. 48, 50 (5th Cir. 2009). Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's request for compassionate release. If Petitioner wishes to pursue his request for compassionate release, he may do so by filing a motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) in the sentencing court. If he wishes to pursue claims regarding his medical treatment at the Beaumont prison, he may do so by filing a civil rights action.
Recommendation
This petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed without prejudice.
Objections
Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.