The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RONALD E. COOKS, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-CV-161
:
Petitioner : (Judge Conner)
:
v. :
:
E. BRADLEY, :
:
Respondent :
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by petitioner Ronald E. Cooks (“Cooks”), an
inmate confined at the United States Penitentiary, Canaan, in Waymart,
Pennsylvania. The sole named respondent is Warden E. Bradley. Preliminary
review of the petition has been undertaken, see R. GOVERNING § 2254 CASES R.4,1
and, for the reasons set forth below, the court will dismiss the petition.
I. Background
Cooks filed the instant habeas petition based on “constitution[al]
violation(s).” (Doc. 1 at 2). His entire claim is based on the following statement:
“constitution of the state of New Columbia Article 1 Bill of Right Sec. 12—show
something (as language) essential esp. to establishing my stay in prison is
1 Rule 4 provides, “[i]f 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.” See R.
GOVERNING § 2254 CASES R.4; see also R. GOVERNING § 2254 CASES R.1(b)
(applicable to petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the discretion of the court).
[]unconstitutional. 18 U.S.C. 1581, 1584 and 1588.” (Id. at 6). For relief, Cooks
requests the appointment of counsel. (Id. at 8).
II. Discussion
A habeas petition may be brought by a prisoner who seeks to challenge either
the fact or duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 45, 494
(1973); Tedford v. Hepting, 990 F.2d 745, 748 (3d Cir. 1993). “Habeas relief is clearly
quite limited: ‘The underlying purpose of proceedings under the ‘Great Writ’ of
habeas corpus has traditionally been to ‘inquire into the legality of the detention,
and the only judicial relief authorized was the discharge of the prisoner or his
admission to bail, and that only if his detention were found to be unlawful.’”
Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Powers of Congress and
the Court Regarding the Availability and Scope of Review, 114 HARV. L. REV. 1551,
1553 (2001)). However, when seeking to impose liability due to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the
appropriate remedy is a civil rights action. See Leamer, 288 F.3d at 540. “Habeas
corpus is not an appropriate or available federal remedy.” See Linnen v. Armainis,
991 F.2d 1102, 1109 (3d Cir. 1993).
Careful review of the petition reveals that Cooks does not seek speedier or
immediate release from custody or challenge the legality of his present
incarceration. Rather, he seeks relief based on “constitution[al] violation(s)” and
requests the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 1 at 2, 8). The claims asserted in Cooks’
§ 2241 petition are not cognizable in a habeas corpus action. See Wilkinson v.
Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005) (habeas relief is available only when prisoners “seek
to invalidate the duration of their confinement - either directly through an
injunction compelling speedier release or indirectly through a judicial
determination that necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the [government’s]
custody”). Summary dismissal is appropriate because the habeas petition is
frivolous and obviously lacking in merit, and “it plainly appears from the petition
and [the] attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court.” See R. GOVERNING § 2254 CASES R. 4. Because the court is dismissing the
habeas petition, the court declines to consider Cooks’ request for appointment of
counsel.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the court will dismiss the petition for writ of habeas
corpus. An appropriate order shall issue.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: May 5, 2021