United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. LUNGSTRUM, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
filed this matter as a petition for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner, a prisoner in
federal custody at USP-Leavenworth in Leavenworth, Kansas
(“USPL”), proceeds pro se and has filed
a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On
September 23, 2019, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause
(Doc. 3) (“OSC”), directing Petitioner to show
good cause why this action should not be dismissed without
prejudice as not properly brought in a § 2241 habeas
proceeding. This matter is before the Court on
Petitioner's Response (Doc. 4).
alleges that prison officials at USPL are denying him access
to the courts. Petitioner suggests that he initiated the
administrative grievance process, but did not pursue it
further after he was approved for law library access on
September 10, 2019. Petitioner alleges that although the
Warden and Unit Manager approved him for access to the law
library two days per week, administration staff are refusing
him access to the law library. Petitioner states that he has
voiced his concerns to his Unit Manager, C. Masters, but she
is being told that Petitioner is refusing the law library.
was sentenced in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida. (Doc. 1, at 1.) Petitioner states
that his § 2255 motion is due on October 1, 2019, and he
is unable to meet the deadline due to the denial of access to
the law library and the denial of legal materials such as
paper to “brief out his grounds.” Petitioner also
alleges that the law library printer has been disabled,
preventing inmates from printing legal materials so that they
can take them to their cells for further study.
request for relief asks the Court to order the officials at
USPL to grant Petitioner access to the courts, including
access to the law library and legal materials, or to
“stay the Petitioner's October 1, 2019, due date
for his § 2255 under equitable tolling of the
limitations period.” (Doc. 1, at 9.)
obtain habeas corpus relief, an inmate must demonstrate that
“[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or
laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
provides the remedy to challenge the execution of a sentence.
Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th
Cir. 2011). Thus, a petitioner may challenge the fact or
duration of his confinement and may seek release or a shorter
period of confinement. See Palma-Salazar v. Davis,
677 F.3d 1031, 1037 n.2 (10th Cir. 2012). However, claims
challenging a prisoner's conditions of confinement do not
arise under Section 2241. See McIntosh v. United States
Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997)
(contrasting suits under Section 2241 and conditions of
Court's OSC, the Court found that Petitioner does not
complain of the loss of good conduct time or of any negative
impact on the duration of his sentence. Rather, he claims a
denial of access to the courts. Petitioner has failed to
allege a valid factual basis for a § 2241 petition
because he complains about prison conditions.
Response, Petitioner argues that prison officials at USPL are
denying him access to the courts in violation of the First
Amendment. Petitioner argues that this provides a factual
basis to bring a petition under § 2241. Petitioner also
argues that he has exhausted his administrative remedies even
though he acknowledged that he ceased the process because he
was granted relief. Lastly, Petitioner “requests that
the extent of his relief regarding his § 2255 motion be
transferred to Petitioner's sentencing court in
accordance with Section 2241(d) and this Court's
discretion.” (Doc. 4, at 2.)
Court declines to transfer this matter to Petitioner's
sentencing court. Petitioner cites § 2241(d), which
Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made by a
person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State
court of a State which contains two or more Federal judicial
districts, the application may be filed in the district court
for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the
district court for the district within which the State court
was held which convicted and sentenced him and each of such
district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to
entertain the application. The district court for the
district wherein such an application is filed in the exercise
of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may transfer
the application to the other district court for hearing and
28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). This subsection applies to a person
serving a state sentence. Petitioner was sentenced in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida and is serving a federal sentence. Furthermore,
transfer is unnecessary because it appears that Petitioner
was successful in filing his § 2255 motion by his
October 1, 2019 deadline. See Leon v. United
States, No. 6:19-cv-01882-JA-DCI (M.D. Fla.). The
54-page § 2255 motion was signed by Petitioner on
September 24, 2019, and filed on October 1, 2019.
Court finds that Petitioner has failed to show good cause why
his petition under § 2241 should not be dismissed.
Petitioner was successful in filing his § 2255 motion
and can seek any further relief in that action. Furthermore,
even if Petitioner could show that he exhausted his
administrative remedies, he has failed to allege a valid
claim for the denial of court access under the First
Amendment. Any claim Petitioner may have regarding access to
the courts fails to allege an injury. See Proch v.
Baker, No. 14-3021-CM, 2017 WL 2793922, at *7 (D. Kan.
June 28, 2017) (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
349 (1996) (violations of the constitutional right of access
to the courts require a showing of injury due to the
deprivation); Sterling v. Edwards, 881 F.Supp. 488,
490 (D. Kan. 1995) (there must be prejudice)). Petitioner has
failed to allege an injury. Petitioner's motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis is moot and therefore denied.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Petition
is dismissed without prejudice.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for
leave to proceed in forma ...