Opinion
Civil Action 22-235
07-19-2022
MARTELL SMITH, Petitioner, v. ORLANDO HARPER et al., Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: ECF NO. 1
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” (the “Petition”), ECF No. 1, ostensibly filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, be treated as a Section 2241 petition and dismissed pre-service, as not cognizable as a federal habeas action. It is further recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied.
II. REPORT
A. Factual and Procedural Background
Martell Smith (“Petitioner”) is an inmate of the Allegheny County Jail (“ACJ”) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In the Petition, he attacks the conditions of his confinement at ACJ, and specifically asserts that inmates are held in solitary confinement in violation of the Constitution of the United States as well as local law. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 8-9, 12, 14-18 . By way of relief, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Respondents to comply with local law, and to ensure that “each inmate at ACJ is provided the minimum of four (4) hours of out of cell time seven days per week.” Id. at 4
Petitioner does not allege whether he is a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. However, the public record indicates that Petitioner is facing charges in Commonwealth v. Smith, No. CP-023809-2018 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. See https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/CpDocketSheet?docketNumber=CP-02-CR-0003809-2018&dnh=HkVZFWxS7ycbejS6AIbttg%3D%3D (last visited July 19, 2022). Thus, while it ultimately is not dispositive of this case, the undersigned presumes that Petitioner is a pre-trial detainee.
B. Discussion
1. Rule 4
The Petition has not been served. However, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, this Court may dismiss the Petition if it plainly appears on its face that the Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief.
“Courts have used Rule 4 of the habeas corpus rules to summarily dismiss facially insufficient habeas petitions brought under § 2241. Howard v. Haley, 2001 WL 303534, *1 (S.D. Ala. March 8, 2001); Howard v. Certain Unnamed Aircraft Pilots, 1995 WL 431150, *2 (N.D. Ill. July 18, 1995). Because the petition is facially insufficient, it will be dismissed.” Perez v. Hemingway, 157 F.Supp.2d 790, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Accord United States v. Recinos- Gallegos, 151 F.Supp.2d 659 (D. Md. 2001) (dismissing petition construed as Section 2241 pursuant to Rule 4). See also Castillo v. Pratt, 162 F.Supp.2d 575, 577 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (“The Supreme Court intended the 2254 Rules to apply to petitions filed under § 2241. See Rule 1(b) of the 2254 Rules”); Ukawabutu v. Morton, 997 F.Supp. 605, 608 n.2 (D.N.J. 1998)(“I refer to these rules [i.e., Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases] as the “Habeas Corpus Rules” because they apply to petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as well as 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”); Wyant v. Edwards, 952 F.Supp. 348, 352 (S.D. W.Va. 1997)(“the Court has concluded that the § 2254 Rules were intended to apply to § 2241 cases. . .”). Because Rule 4 applies to both Section 2254 Petitions and to Section 2241 Petitions, it does not matter for Rule 4 purposes how the Petition is characterized.
Rule 4 provides in relevant part that:
If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.
In interpreting Rule 4, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 observe that:
28 U.S.C. § 2243 requires that the writ shall be awarded, or an order to show cause issued, “unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Such consideration may properly encompass any exhibits attached to the petition, including, but not limited to, transcripts, sentencing records,
and copies of state court opinions. The judge may order any of these items for his consideration if they are not yet included with the petition.
2. The relief sought by Petitioner is not cognizable in habeas.
The purpose of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is to allow a person in custody to challenge either the fact or duration of confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973); Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002). Federal habeas relief is unavailable unless the petitioner attacks the fact or duration of his imprisonment. See Leamer, 288 F.3d at 542; see also Credico v. BOP FDC Warden of Phila., 592 Fed.Appx. 55, 57-58 (3d Cir. 2014). In contrast, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a federal law that allows lawsuits for violations of constitutional rights and establishes a cause of action for any person who has been deprived of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States by a person acting under color of state law.
Section 2254 confers jurisdiction on federal district courts to issue “writs of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court ... on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It is well-established that a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cannot be used to attack a convicted prisoner's conditions of confinement. Leamer, 288 F.3d at 542 (“when the challenge is to a condition of confinement such that a finding in plaintiff's favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction, an action under § 1983 is appropriate.”). Thus, any attempt be Petitioner to attack his conditions of confinement under Section 2254 would fail even if he were a convicted prisoner.
Presuming, however, that Petitioner is a pre-trial detainee, a petition under Section 2254 would be improper because Petitioner would not be a “person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Instead, any federal habeas relief would have to arise under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As observed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Section 2241 confers jurisdiction on federal district courts to issue writs of habeas corpus in response to a petition from a state pre-trial detainee or federal detainee who “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 484 (3d Cir. 2001).
It appears that Petitioner is attempting to do that very thing, relying in large part on Hope v. Warden York County Prison, 972 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2020), throughout the instant Petition. See, e.g., ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. In Hope, the Third Circuit found that federal immigration detainees' claims for release based on alleged conditions of confinement were cognizable in a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hope, 972 F.3d at 323 and 325. However, it is noteworthy that the petitioners in that case were federal detainees, and were unequivocal that they sought outright release, and not merely a modification of their conditions of confinement. Id. at 323 and 325. Here, Petitioner is a state detainee, and seeks a modification of how many hours he can be held in a solitary cell in ACJ -not outright release from confinement. ECF No. 1 at 4.
Further, the Third Circuit was clear in Hope that “[i]n recognizing the viability of this § 2241 claim [it was] not creating a garden variety cause of action.” 972 F.3d at 324. Habeas relief under Section 2241 has not been extended by Hope beyond its limited circumstances. See, e.g., Houck v. Moser, No. 20-cv-255, 2021 WL 1840827, at *2 (W.D. Pa. May 7, 2021) (“Even in the COVID-19 era, a writ of habeas corpus is not a generally available remedy outside the immigrant detainee context contemplated in Hope[.]”). See also Arrington v. Cmmw., No. 21-cv-1282, 2022 WL 317147, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 314675 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2022) (“If Petitioner wants to pursue claims regarding the alleged mold at the Beaver County Jail, the mental health care he receives there, or whether the jail follows applicable local, state or federal guidelines or its grievance procedures, he may only do so in separate civil rights case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”).
Accordingly, the instant Petition should be dismissed because it is clear that Petitioner's claims are not cognizable in a federal habeas action. If he wishes to attack in federal court the conditions of confinement of his detention by state authorities, he must file a lawsuit asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. A certificate of appealability should be denied.
A certificate of appealability should be denied because jurists of reason would not find it debatable that the instant case is not cognizable in habeas. See, e.g., Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition, ECF No. 1, be treated as a Section 2241 petition and dismissed pre-service, as not cognizable in habeas. It is further recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.
The Honorable Cathy Bissoon, United States District Judge