The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES FLEMING, : Civil No. 1:21-CV-00385
:
Petitioner, :
:
v. :
:
SCOTT FINLEY, et al., :
:
Respondents. : Judge Sylvia H. Rambo
M E M O R A N D U M
Presently before the court is a report and recommendation (“R&R”) issued by
United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on April 27, 2021 (Doc. 10),
which recommends denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner
Scott Finley (“Petitioner”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and the Petitioner’s
objection thereto (Doc. 11). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will adopt the
R&R in its entirety and overrule the Petitioner’s objection.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Upon de novo review of the record, the court adopts the R&R’s statement of
facts and procedural history concerning this pro se habeas corpus petition. Petitioner,
who is currently incarcerated at FCI Schuylkill, is serving a 120-month sentence
imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii for conspiracy
to distribute controlled substances. (Doc. 8-1, at 1, ¶ 3). Petitioner purportedly
suffers from diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, hyperlipidemia, and severe obesity,
and previously tested positive for an asymptomatic case of COVID-19 on December
22, 2020. (Doc. 1, at 3). Although Petitioner has since recovered and received both
doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, he argues that his medical
conditions continue to place him at increased risk of developing severe medical
complications from COVID-19 should he become re-infected with the virus. (Doc.
1, at 3; Doc. 8-1, at 2, ¶¶ 9-12).
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 2, 2021 and
maintains that his continued detention at FCI Schuylkill violates the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. (Doc. 1). The basis
of his federal habeas petition is that prison officials allegedly failed to implement
proper COVID-19 protocols, which thereby subjected him to unsafe conditions and
caused him and other inmates to contract the virus. As for relief, Petitioner seeks to
either be released to home confinement, receive some form of “order of
enlargement” regarding his custodial status, or have Respondents provide
“medically adequate social distancing, [] healthcare, and sanitation” at FCI
Schuylkill. (Doc. 1, 45-47).
On April 27, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a R&R that recommended
denying the Petitioner’s § 2241 petition on several grounds. Specifically, the R&R
found that: (1) insofar as Petitioner sought to bring a putative class action on behalf
of himself and other inmates at FCI Schuylkill, his pro se request for class
certification should be denied; (2) Petitioner had not satisfied the administrative
exhaustion requirement for his COVID-19 related claims; (3) Petitioner’s claims for
relief under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES
Act’) were not cognizable; and (4) that Petitioner’s Eighth Amendment claim failed
as a matter of law. (Doc. 10, at 2-4, 9-22). Petitioner filed an objection to the R&R
on May 10, 2021, (Doc. 11), to which the Respondents responded on May 12, 2021
(Doc. 12). This matter is thus ripe for disposition.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
When objections are timely filed to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions
of the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue,
649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the standard is de novo, the extent of
review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and the court may
rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems
proper. Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F. Supp. 2d 496, 499 (M.D. Pa. 2000) (citing United
States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)). For those sections of the report and
recommendation to which no objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good
practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order
to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see
also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D.
Pa. 2010) (citation omitted). Regardless of whether or not timely objections are
made, the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Local Rule 72.31.
Hil. DISCUSSION
Upon review, it appears that Petitioner’s only substantive objection is to the
Magistrate Judge’s finding that his Eighth Amendment claim fails as a matter of law.
The Eighth Amendment guarantees a prisoner's right to be free from “cruel and
unusual punishments” while in custody. Ricks v. Shover, 891 F.3d 468, 473 (3d Cir.
2018) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 318 (1986) (quoting U.S. Const.
amend. VIII)). “To prevail against prison officials on a claim that an inmate's
conditions of confinement violated the Eighth Amendment, the inmate must meet
two requirements: (1) the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, ‘sufficiently
serious,’ and (2) the ‘prison official must have a sufficiently culpable state of mind.’”
Thomas v. Tice, 948 F.3d 133, 138 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). As relevant here, the second element is met when an inmate
shows that “prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to the inmate’s health
or safety or conditions of confinement that violated the inmate’s constitutional
rights.” /d. at 138 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991).
Further, as the R&R correctly noted, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit has held that a habeas petitioner’s “claim that unconstitutional
conditions of confinement . . . require . . . release is cognizable in habeas.” Hope v.
Warden York Cty. Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 325 (3d Cir. 2020). Such a challenge in a
federal habeas action, however, is viable “only in extreme cases.” Id. at 324
(emphasis in original) (citations omitted). For example, despite the “unique concerns
regarding the spread of the COVID-19 virus” in confined prison settings, Rodriguez-
Francisco v. White, No. 1:20-CV-1076, 2020 WL 4260766, at *3 (M.D. Pa. July 24,
2020), courts within this circuit have found that the “inability to practice social
distancing is not, in and of itself, sufficiently serious to implicate a violation of the
Eighth Amendment.” Butcher v. Howard, No. 1:20-CV-01994, 2021 WL 37994, at
*5 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2021) (citing Engelund v. Doll, No. 4:20-cv-604, 2020 WL
1974389, at *9 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 4, 2020)).
Here, Petitioner contends that Respondents displayed deliberate indifference
to his medical needs by failing to: reduce the inmate population at FCI Schuylkill;
sufficiently disinfect prison facilities; and adequately respond to inmate complaints
of the after-effects of COVID-19. (Doc. 11). Nonetheless, upon de novo review of
the record, the Court agrees with the R&R’s assessment that the BOP has taken
several reasonable steps to curtail the effects of the pandemic at FCI Schuylkill. Such
measures include regularly testing both inmates and staff, practicing quarantine and
isolation strategies, and providing inmates with vaccination opportunities. Further,
while Petitioner’s previous exposure to COVID-19 is indeed regrettable, the
uncontradicted evidence submitted by Respondents shows that Petitioner was
asymptomatic, did not have any documented complaints of symptoms or
complications related to the virus, and cooperated with the prison’s vaccination
efforts. Simply stated, “[Petitioner] has not identified, let alone proven, any official
conduct that exhibits deliberate indifference to the health or safety or prisoners
during this unprecedented worldwide pandemic.” Rodriguez-Francisco, 2020 WL
4260766, at *5; see also Wilkins v. Wolf, No. 1:20-CV-2450, 2021 WL 2376678, at
*6 (M.D. Pa. June 10, 2021) (collecting cases). Accordingly, Petitioner’s Eighth
Amendment claim cannot succeed, and the Court will overrule his objection. The
Court additionally finds that the R&R’s remaining findings lack any clear error.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court shall overrule the Plaintiff's
objection and adopt the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s request for
class certification and petition for habeas relief will be denied and dismissed. An
appropriate order shall follow.
/s/ Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: August 25, 2021