Brown v. Warden of FCC-Allenwood Medium

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FRANKIE BROWN, :

Petitioner : No. 1:23-cv-01196

:

v. : (Judge Kane)

:

WARDEN OF FCC-ALLENWOOD :

MEDIUM, :

Respondent :

MEMORANDUM

Before the Court is a habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through which

Petitioner Frankie Brown (“Brown”) challenges a prison disciplinary sanction and additionally

seeks a transfer to another prison and damages. The Court will dismiss the petition without

prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

Brown was incarcerated in Allenwood Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI-

Allenwood”) at the time he filed his petition.1 Brown asserts that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)

is violating his rights under the United States Constitution and the First Step Act by not housing

him at a prison that is within 500 miles of his home. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) He additionally brings

unspecified challenges to a disciplinary sanction he received while in BOP custody that resulted

in the loss of fourteen days of good conduct time, six months of visitation privileges, three

months of commissary privileges, and three months without a mattress. (Id. at 2.) Brown

1 Brown has since been transferred to Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma

City, Oklahoma. This court retains jurisdiction over his petition because it was filed when he

was incarcerated in this district. See Anariba v. Dir. Hudson Cnty. Corr. Ctr., 17 F.4th 434, 446

(3d Cir. 2021).

requests $100,000 in damages, transfer to an institution close to his home, and expungement of

his disciplinary sanctions. (Id.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 4 of the rules governing habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a

district court must promptly review a petition and dismiss it if it is plain from the face of the

petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4. District courts

have the discretion to apply this rule in habeas corpus cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 1.

III. DISCUSSION

Dismissal of this case under Rule 4 is appropriate. Brown’s request for damages and a

transfer to another institution are not cognizable claims in a habeas corpus petition. The purpose

of a writ of habeas corpus is to secure release from unlawful detention. See Hope v. Warden

York Cnty. Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 323 (3d Cir. 2020). Claims that do not attack the legality of a

petitioner’s detention are not cognizable habeas corpus claims. See Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d

532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002).

Brown’s request for expungement of his disciplinary sanctions is a cognizable habeas

corpus claim. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (noting that sole remedy

available for claim seeking restoration of good conduct time is a writ of habeas corpus). That

claim, however, plainly fails on its merits because Brown does not offer any legal basis to

challenge the disciplinary sanctions or any arguments as to how the disciplinary sanctions

violated his due process rights under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563–67 (1974) or

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455–56 (1985). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss

Brown’s petition without prejudice.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus

(Doc. No. 1) without prejudice to Brown’s right to file a new petition that alleges facts to support

his claim seeking expungement of his disciplinary sanctions. An appropriate order follows.

s/ Yvette Kane _

Yvette Kane, District Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania