Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-294 Erie
02-06-2019
BRYANT K. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. SUPT. MICHAEL CLARK, Respondents.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoner Bryant K. Johnson ("Petitioner") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. It is respectfully recommended that the petition be dismissed without service because Petitioner cannot pursue his claims in a habeas action. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In the United States District Courts (federal district courts have a pre-service duty to screen and summarily dismiss habeas petitions that plainly show the petitioner is not entitled to relief).
II. REPORT
Petitioner is incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution ("SCI") located in Albion, Pennsylvania. According to the petition, he is serving a term of imprisonment imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County.
Petitioner raises two claims in his petition. First, he claims that SCI Albion staff forced him to surrender a pair of boots in violation of his "Federally protected rights." ECF No. 1 at 6. Second, he challenges the Department of Corrections' (the "DOC's") policy restricting inmate access to printed books from outside sources, which he claims also violates his "Federally protected rights." ECF No. 1 at 7. As relief, Petitioner seeks an order from this Court that directs "SCI Albion officials to restore the $92.65 to [his] inmate account for the loss of [his] Timberland boots." ECF No. 1 at 8. He also seeks an order that directs "the DOC/SCI Albion officials to restore my rights to receive both religious and non-religious printed materials from approved providers, publishers and/or distributors." Id.
The federal habeas statute applicable to state prisoners is 28 U.S.C. § 2254. It permits a federal court to grant a state prisoner the writ of habeas corpus if the prisoner demonstrates that "he or she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). As evidenced by the language of the statute, the purpose of a habeas corpus petition is for challenging the fact of a criminal conviction or the duration of a sentence and its function is to secure release from illegal custody. See, e.g., Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz, 729 F.3d 278, 280 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) ("the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and that the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.") and Barry v. Brower, 864 F.2d 294, 296 (3d Cir. 1988) ("a district court's power to grant a writ of habeas corpus under § 28 U.S.C. 2254 is limited...to directing [the petitioner's] release from custody.")). In contrast, "when the challenge is to a condition of confinement such that a finding in [a state prisoner's] favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction, [a civil rights] action under [42 U.S.C] § 1983 is appropriate." Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 494 ("If a state prisoner is seeking damages, he is attacking something other than immediate or more speedy release-the traditional purpose of habeas corpus. In the case of a damages claim, habeas corpus is not an appropriate or available federal remedy.").
Neither of Petitioner's claims challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. His claims challenge conditions of his confinement and they are not cognizable in a federal habeas action. Therefore, the Court should summarily dismiss them.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") codified standards governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability for appellate review of a district court's disposition of a habeas petition. AEDPA limits the issuance of a certificate of appealability to circumstances where "the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner failed to allege the denial of a constitutional right that would entitle him to habeas relief, let alone demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of such a right. Accordingly, the Court should not grant him a certificate of appealability on either of his claims.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Court summarily dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and deny a certificate of appealability on all claims. 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, Petitioner is 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).
/s/_________
RICHARD A. LANZILLO
United States Magistrate Judge Date: February 6 2019