Opinion
1:21-cv-16638 (NLH) (SAK)
09-21-2021
SANDY GOMEZ, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant.
Sandy Gomez 72557-054 Federal Correctional Institution Berlin P.O. Box 900 Berlin, NH 03570 Plaintiff pro se
APPEARANCES:
Sandy Gomez 72557-054 Federal Correctional Institution Berlin P.O. Box 900 Berlin, NH 03570 Plaintiff pro se
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
HILLMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE
WHEREAS, Plaintiff Sandy Gomez is a federal prisoner currently confined in FCI Berlin, New Hampshire, see ECF No. 1; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a document captioned as a motion for an injunction against the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). Id.; and
WHEREAS, he alleges that the BOP charged him with committing a prohibited act, Possession of a Hazardous Tool, and violated his due process rights during the disciplinary hearing.
As a result, Plaintiff lost good conduct time; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff asks the Court to order the BOP to expunge his disciplinary report and lift the sanctions that were imposed; and
WHEREAS, “[c]ourts, of course, look to the substance of a motion and not the caption.” Dias v. Bogins, No. 94-1069, 1994 WL 243855, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 6, 1994). A habeas corpus petition is the proper mechanism for a federal prisoner to challenge the “fact or duration” of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 (1973); see also Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004). Plaintiff's challenge to the loss of good conduct time is more appropriately considered in a habeas corpus proceeding under § 2241 “as the action could affect the duration of the petitioner's sentence.” Queen v. Miner, 530 F.3d 253, 254 n.2 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam); and
WHEREAS, although Plaintiff was confined in FCI Fort Dix, New Jersey during the disciplinary proceedings, petitions under § 2241 need to be filed in the district of confinement naming the inmate's immediate custodian as respondent, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff is currently confined within the District of New Hampshire. The Court concludes the interests of justice would be better served by transferring this action to that court for consideration. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought . . . .”), THEREFORE, IT IS on this 21st day of September, 2021 ORDERED that the Clerk shall transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 2241; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular mail and close this matter.