United States District Court, D. South Carolina
James L. Roudabush, Jr., #82038-083, Petitioner,
Warden Mosely, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JACQUELYN D. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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 F.C.I. Edgefield, in Edgefield,
South Carolina, seeks 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.
filed this writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241, seeking immediate release from prison, complaining of
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and claiming his
life is in imminent danger. [Doc. 1 at 1-4.] Petitioner
contends that he is being held under unconstitutional
conditions and in violation of federal law and statutes, and
he was not afforded a due process hearing before being
transferred to F.C.I. Edgefield. [Id. at 1.] He
contends he is being psychologically tortured, physically
tortured, and sexually abused. [Id. at 1-2.] He
contends he cannot mail letters to the media and the prison
staff censors and destroys his mail. [Id.]
Petitioner claims the BOP is running a drug operation at
Edgefield and Williamsburg. [Id. at 2.]
Petitioner's life is threatened daily. [Id. at
3.] The prison staff steal commissary from the canteen and
give it to the drug dealers. [Id.] Petitioner is
being denied medical care. [Id.] Prison officials
place inmates, including gang members, drug dealers, and
“crazies, ” in Petitioner's cell with him to
get him beaten and sexually abused. [Id.] Based on
all of these allegations, Petitioner claims he is entitled to
immediate release from the BOP. [Id. at 4.]
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).
requests a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241, seeking release from BOP custody. [Doc. 2 at 4.]
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.
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)).
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 Fed.Appx. 859 (4th Cir. 2009)
(citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499-500
(1973); Moran v. Sondalle, 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 Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. 261, 265-66
(4th Cir. 2017) (noting that transfer from one prison to
another is not a cognizable § 2241 claim because such a
claim challenges the conditions of an inmate's
confinement, not its fact or duration).
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 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;
thus, the Petition is subject to summary dismissal.