Opinion
C/A No. 8:18-1818-BHH-JDA
07-18-2018
James L. Roudabush, Jr., #82038-083, Petitioner, v. Warden FCI Edgefield, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
James L. Roudabush, Jr. ("Petitioner"), proceeding pro se, brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. 1.] Petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") presently incarcerated at FCI Edgefield, in Edgefield, South Carolina, seeks immediate release from BOP custody, challenging various conditions of his confinement and claiming his life is in imminent danger. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons below, the Petition is subject to summary dismissal.
Petitioner names U.S. Magistrate Judge Austin and U.S. District Judge Hendricks as Defendants in this action. However, these two Defendants were terminated from this action because a prisoner's custodian is the proper respondent in a habeas corpus action. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004).
BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed this writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking "immediate release from the F-BOP because his life is in imminent danger." [Doc. 1 at 1.] Petitioner alleges that U.S. Magistrate Judge Austin is conspiring and colluding with the staff and administration at FCI Edgefield. [Id.] Plaintiff further contends that Judge Austin is close personal friends with the administration and that she has denied Petitioner's repeated requests for relief. [Id.] According to Petitioner, drug dealing and usage is allowed and condoned by the staff and administration at the prison, Mexican drug gangs run the prison and tell the corrections officers what to do, and they get extra privileges. [Id.] Further, Plaintiff alleges homosexuals and sex offenders are harassed, abused, and discriminated against. [Id. at 2.] Inmates are denied medical care, adequate food, and sanitary conditions. [Id.] The "SHU is a drug exchange site." [Id.] Inmates walk around the compound smoking cigarettes and using drugs with the corrections officers protecting them. [Id.] Inmate Prison Rape Elimination Act ("PREA") reports are not allowed to be filed, and "sex is openly done" in units and buildings without corrections officers doing anything about it. [Id.] Inmates are denied psychological help, and mental health staff are like "good little puppets" who obey the security staff. [Id.]
Plaintiff also contends U.S. District Judge Hendricks dismisses complaints from the inmates and does not give complaints liberal construction, even though they are pro se. [Id.] Judge Hendricks and Judge Austin ignore the abuses, torture, and denial of rights. [Id. at 3.] Prison staff members steal canteen items and give them to drug dealers, and they bring in drugs and tobacco products to give to inmates. [Id.] Petitioner has attempted to expose all of these things, which "makes [Petitioner's] life in danger from staff and inmates." [Id. (emphasis omitted).] Petitioner is at Edgefield illegally. [Id. at 4.] Lt. Young at FCI Williamsburg kidnaped Petitioner and brought him to Edgefield, through an agreement with Warden Mosely to abuse Petitioner. [Id.]
Further, Plaintiff's mail has been denied and delayed; his legal mail has been opened, read, and altered; he has been denied all privileges; he has been threatened; he has been denied recreation time; and he is being mentally and physically tortured. [Id. at 4-5.] Based on all of these things, Petitioner claims he is entitled to immediate release from the Bureau of Prisons. [Id. at 5.]
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) DSC, the undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district court. This Court is charged with screening Petitioner's lawsuit to determine if "it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (2012); see also Rule 1(b) Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (2012) (a district court may apply these rules to a habeas corpus petition not filed pursuant to § 2254). As a pro se litigant, Petitioner's pleadings are accorded liberal construction and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (per curiam). However, even under this less stringent standard, the Petition in this case is subject to summary dismissal. The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
DISCUSSION
Petitioner seeks immediate release from BOP custody. He requests a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. 1 at 5.] However, despite seeking release from custody and asserting his claims pursuant to § 2241, Petitioner's allegations all relate to the conditions of his confinement, which are not cognizable in a habeas petition.
District courts are authorized to grant writs of habeas corpus "within their respective jurisdictions." See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A § 2241 habeas action generally challenges the execution or implementation of a federal prisoner's sentence, such as the BOP's administration of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, computation of sentence, prison disciplinary actions, and prison transfers. See Fontanez v. O'Brien, 807 F. 3d 84, 87 (4th Cir. 2015); Lagos-M v. Warden of FCI Williamsburg, No. 0:08-2913-HMH-PJG, 2009 WL 1749772, at *2 (D.S.C. June 22, 2009). Further, "it is well established that defendants convicted in federal court are obliged to seek habeas relief from their convictions and sentences through § 2255." Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc)).
To the extent Petitioner seeks to overturn his conviction or sentence, he may not do so through this habeas action because he has failed to satisfy the savings clause. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). "[Section] 2241 may be utilized by a federal prisoner to challenge the legality of his or her conviction or sentence if he or she can satisfy the mandates of the so-called § 2255 'savings clause' . . . ." Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Ennis v. Olsen, No. 00-7361, 2000 WL 1868982, at *1 (4th Cir. Dec. 22, 2000). Federal prisoners have erroneously attempted to overturn federal convictions or sentences by filing a § 2241 action. See, e.g., San-Miguel v. Dove, 291 F.3d 257, 259-61 (4th Cir. 2002) (affirming summary dismissal of a § 2241 action challenging a conviction and sentence). That a § 2255 action may be unsuccessful, untimely, or successive does not render it an inadequate or ineffective remedy, as required by the savings clause. In Re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997). Thus, Petitioner's § 2241 action, to the extent he seeks to challenge his conviction and sentence entered by the trial court, is barred because he has not demonstrated that the relief available to him under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. See In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2000) ("§ 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because an individual is unable to obtain relief under that provision. A contrary rule would effectively nullify the gatekeeping provisions.") (citations omitted); Chisholm v. Pettiford, No. 6:06-2032-PMD-WMC, 2006 WL 2707320, at *2 (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 2006). Thus, to the extent that Petitioner seeks immediate release on the grounds that his conviction or sentence are illegal, his Petition is devoid of allegations suggesting that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective such that the savings clause would permit him to raise his claims under § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244, 2255; see also United States v. Miller, No. 6:06-cv-548-HFF, 2007 WL 2684844, at *3 (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 2007) (explaining § 2255 affords petitioner the relief which he seeks and § 2241 cannot be used in lieu of a proceeding under § 2255) (citing Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 381 (1977)).
Here, Petitioner appears to claim he is entitled to an order releasing him from BOP custody because his life is in "imminent danger" due to various conditions of his confinement that violate his constitutional rights. [See Doc. 1.] To the extent that Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, however, he must do so in an action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See, e.g., Hawkins v. Perdue, No. 1:13-cv-214, 2014 WL 1962216, at *2 (N.D. W.Va. May 15, 2014) (explaining challenges to the conditions of confinement are not cognizable under § 2241, but instead must be pursued through a Bivens action or a claim under the APA). "A § 2241 petition is appropriate whenever an inmate challenges the fact or length of his confinement, or an administrative order regarding his good-behavior credits. It is well-established, however, that it may not be used to challenge the inmate's conditions of confinement." Warman v. Philips, No. 1:08-cv-217, 2009 WL 2705833, at *3 (N.D. W.Va. Aug. 25, 2009), aff'd, 353 F. App'x 859 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499-500 (1973); Moran v. Soudalle, 218 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2000)). The Fourth Circuit has explained,
Section 2241 habeas petitions are appropriate when an inmate seeks to challenge "the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment." See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). This Court has not directly addressed whether a § 2241 petition may also be used to challenge conditions of confinement or whether such challenges must be brought as civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (providing civil remedy for deprivation of rights under color of law); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (establishing the validity of actions for damages when a federal officer acting under the color of federal authority violates plaintiff's constitutional rights). Nonetheless, courts have generally held that a § 1983 suit or a Bivens action is the appropriate means of challenging conditions of confinement, whereas § 2241 petitions are not. See Braddy v. Wilson, 580 F. App'x 172, 173 (4th Cir. 2014) (deciding that when petitioner alleged constitutional violations "regarding only the conditions of his confinement" not the fact or duration of his sentence, his claims were properly brought under Bivens); Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that filing a § 2241 challenge to a condition of confinement was improper). But see Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ("[O]ne in custody may challenge the conditions of his confinement in a [§ 2241] petition . . . .").Rodriguez v. Ratledge, 715 F. App'x 261, 265-66 (4th Cir. 2017) (noting that transfer from one prison to another is not a cognizable § 2241 claim; instead, such a claim challenges the conditions of an inmate's confinement, not its fact or duration).
Thus, Petitioner's claims concerning conditions at FCI Edgefield are subject to dismissal for failure to state a cognizable claim and without prejudice to Petitioner's right to file a Bivens action relating to his claims. Lewis v. Dorriety, No. 8:12-cv-3257-MGL, 2013 WL 3152372, at *2 (D.S.C. June 18, 2013) (explaining a habeas petitioner's claims concerning his right to access to the court and legal materials, although asserted on a § 2241 form were not cognizable in a § 2241 proceeding) (citing Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 79 (2005) (distinguishing between a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and a habeas action where "a state prisoner challenges 'the fact or duration of his confinement' and seeks either 'immediate release' from prison or the 'shortening' of his term of confinement") (citations omitted)); see also Lee v. Winston, 717 F.2d 888, 892 (4th Cir. 1983) (recognizing the difference between a habeas action, where the goal is to secure absolute release from custody, and a § 1983 action, which provides the exclusive means for those seeking to enjoin persons acting under color of state law from depriving citizens of a constitutional right). Simply put, Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2241, and the Petition is therefore subject to summary dismissal.
The Court notes that Petitioner has filed numerous actions with this Court pursuant to Bivens regarding the conditions of his confinement, asserting claims identical to those raised here, some of which remain pending. See, e.g., case Nos. 8:17-cv-3254-BHH, 8:18-cv-0311-BHH, 8:18-cv-1045-BHH-JDA, 8:18-cv-1113-BHH-JDA, and 8:18-cv-1599-BHH-JDA.
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is recommended that the § 2241 Petition be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to file an answer or return. Petitioner's attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin
United States Magistrate Judge July 18, 2018
Greenville, South Carolina
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must 'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
300 East Washington Street, Room 239
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).