United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT AND REPORT AND
PAGE KELLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
petitioner Sean Jenkins is in custody at FMC Devens,
Massachusetts. He filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking transfer to
Puerto Rico. For the reasons set forth below, this Court
orders the Clerk's Office to reassign the case to a
District Judge and recommends that the District Judge deny
the petition and dismiss this action.
January 10, 2019, petitioner filed this habeas action on a
form he filled out, seeking habeas relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. (#1.) This action was assigned to this
court, pursuant to the Court's Program for Random
Assignment of Civil Cases to Magistrate Judges.
is civilly committed to the custody of the United States
Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d).
See United States v. Jenkins, No. 5:16-hc-02229-BR
(E.D. N.C. Feb. 28, 2017); see also #1 ¶ 4.
Petitioner alleges that he is “in a hostile, abusive
and racist environment” and seeks “return to
Puerto Rico.” Id. ¶¶ 5, 15. On
February 20, 2019, he filed a letter concerning the payment
of the filing fee. (#4.)
Jenkins brings this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the
rules governing petitions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 may be applied. See Rule 1(b) of the
Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254. Under
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under
Section 2254, the court is required to examine a petition,
and if it “plainly appears from the face of the
petition ... that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in
the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition....” Thus, the court has a duty to screen and
summarily dismiss a habeas petition prior to any answer or
other pleading when the petition “appears legally
insufficient on its face.” McFarland v. Scott,
512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). In considering whether Jenkins'
petition clears this hurdle, the Court liberally construes
his petition because he is proceeding pro se. See Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
review under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is appropriate if a person
is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws
… of the United States.” § 2241(c)(3).
“A motion pursuant to § 2241 generally challenges
the execution of a federal prisoner's sentence,
including such matters as the administration of parole,
computation of a prisoner's sentence by prison officials,
prison disciplinary actions, prison transfers, type of
detention and prison conditions.” Jiminian v.
Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146 (2d Cir. 2001) (emphasis in
argues that he is in a “hostile, abusive and racist
environment.” (#1 at 2.) He says that he is being
“constantly abused by the staff” and that this
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 6.
His petition contains no other details about his claims.
appears to be challenging the conditions of his confinement.
This claim should be brought through a civil rights action
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) ((holding that
an individual aggrieved by a federal official's violation
of his constitutional rights can bring an action for monetary
relief). See Kane v. Winn, 319 F.Supp.2d 162, 213
(D. Mass. 2004) (“Although a habeas corpus petition is
the appropriate means to challenge the fact or duration of
incarceration, actions challenging the conditions of
confinement reside more in the heartland of civil actions
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (for state prisoners),
Bivens, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (for federal
prisoners), or some other non-habeas doctrine or
statute.”) (internal quotations omitted). Jenkins presently
has an action pending under Bivens in this court,
see Jenkins v. Spaulding, et al., C.A. No.
18-12359-MPK (filed Nov. 9, 2018), where he appears to
complaint that his records have been tampered with, and as a
result he has not been able to address issues with his
treatment. Id., #1 at 3. Today, February 22, 2019,
the court has permitted Jenkins to amend his pleadings to
include details about how his constitutional rights have been
violated by officials at FMC Devens. See C.A. No.
18-12359-MPK, #7. Jenkins can include in that action any
complaints regarding the constitutionality of his conditions
ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT
foregoing reasons, this Court orders the Clerk's Office
to reassign this action to a District Judge for further
foregoing reasons, this Court also recommends that the
District Judge deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus