United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Sorokin United States District Judge.
reasons set forth below, the § 2255 petition will be
September 19, 2019, Robert Scott Mattingley, an inmate now in
custody at FMC Devens, filed a pro se pleading
entitled “Motion under U.S.C. § 2255 Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Failure to Provide Medical Care under
the Eighth Amendment.” Doc. No. 1. Mattingley states
that he is a bilateral amputee who suffers chronic pain.
Id. at p. 2. He alleges that the prison medical
providers are unable to provide adequate medical care for his
pain. Id. For relief, Mattingley asks the court
“to release him to home confinement and allow him to
receive proper medical care.” Id.
year, Mattingley filed several actions concerning his medical
care which are now pending. See Mattingley v. Coffee, et
al., No. 18-11294-MBB (civil rights complaint filed June
20, 2018); Mattingley v. Anderson, et al., No.
18-12170-DHH (civil rights complaint filed Oct. 18, 2018).
Also pending is a habeas petition concerning the collection
of restitution and his housing placement. See Mattingley
v. Warden Spaulding, et al., No. 18-12299-DLC (§
2241 petition filed Nov. 2, 2018).
search of the federal Judiciary's Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (PACER) service reveals that Mattingley
was sentenced in 2017 by the United States District Court for
the Western District of Virginia to a fifty-month term of
imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised
release for violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a), 77x.
See United States v. Mattingley, C.R. No. 15-005-001 (W.D.
Va. Nov. 17, 2017). Although Mattingley’s motion was
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, the clerk entered it on the
docket as a complaint because the underlying criminal action
is in the Western District of Virginia and not the District
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
‘provides the primary means of collateral attack on a
federal sentence.’” Gonzalez v. United
States, 150 F.Supp.2d 236, 241 (D. Mass. 2001) (quoting
Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000)
(internal citations omitted)). A federal prisoner may
challenge the validity of his term of incarceration and seek
post-conviction relief under § 2255 if his
“sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by
law ... or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972),
Mattingley’s motion is subject to dismissal. Although
he seeks release to home confinement, Mattingley challenges
the sufficiency of the pain management treatment provided by
the medical staff at FMC Devens. In considering
Mattingley’s claim under § 2255, it is clear that
this provision is inapplicable to the motion because
Mattingley does not challenge the validity of his conviction
contrast to § 2255, 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, types of detention and prison
conditions.’” Gonzalez, 150 F.Supp.2d at
241 (quoting Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146 (2d
Cir. 2001)). 28 U.S.C. § 2241 authorizes federal
district courts to review whether a person is “in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to
particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas
corpus, ” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750
(2004), while requests for relief “turning on
circumstances of confinement, ” are more typically
presented in civil rights actions. Id.
has not sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and
this court takes no view whether he is entitled to relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or through a Bivens
civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971) (established a direct cause of action against
federal officials for violations of the federal
extent Mattingley may be seeking compassionate release under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), such an application can only
be filed with the sentencing court after the approval of an
inmate’s request. See 28 C.F.R. § 571.62.
the court DISMISSES Mattingley’s Motion under ...