From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cheney v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Nov 5, 2004
No. 3-04-CV-2207-L (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2004)

Opinion

No. 3-04-CV-2207-L.

November 5, 2004


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Petitioner Robert E. Cheney, an inmate at FCI Seagoville, seeks a writ of habeas corpus to compel his transfer to a Community Confinement Center in Hutchins, Texas. For the reasons stated herein, the application should be denied.

Petitioner is currently serving a 15-month sentence for mail fraud and wire fraud. United States v. Cheney, No. 3-03-CR-00098-BR (D. Ore. Jan. 26, 2004).

A prisoner does not have a constitutional right to incarceration in a particular place or at a particular institution. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-46, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1745-56, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2538, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976). This is an administrative decision left to prison officials and is not actionable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Beck v. Wilkes, 589 F.2d 901, 907 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 100 S.Ct. 90 (1979); Hutchens v. Alabama, 466 F.2d 507, 508 (5th Cir. 1972). The Bureau of Prisons has the authority to assign petitioner to any institution until his sentence expires. Consequently, this ground for relief is without merit and should be overruled. See DaMommio v. Van Buren, 2004 WL 1402574 (N.D. Tex. Jun. 22, 2004) (dismissing habeas petition seeking transfer to halfway house); Dolgiej v. Haro, 2004 WL 243027 at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2004), rec. adopted, 2004 WL 637936 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2004) (same).

To the extent petitioner challenges the denial of adequate medical care while incarcerated, such a claim must be brought in a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). See Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1997) (challenges to conditions of confinement not cognizable in section 2241 case). Petitioner's challenge to the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b) 3624(c) by the Bureau of Prisons must be brought in a civil action under the Administrative Procedures Act. See Richmond v. Scibana, ___ F.3d ___, 2004 WL 2339763 at *4 (7th Cir. Oct. 19, 2004).

RECOMMENDATION

It plainly appears from the face of the pleadings that petitioner is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, his application for writ of habeas corpus should be summarily denied.


Summaries of

Cheney v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Nov 5, 2004
No. 3-04-CV-2207-L (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2004)
Case details for

Cheney v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT E. CHENEY Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Nov 5, 2004

Citations

No. 3-04-CV-2207-L (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2004)