Antonelli vs. Keffer, No. 06-6310 (10th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS July 12, 2007 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court M ICHAEL ANTONELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 06-6310 v. (W .D. of Oklahoma) JOE KEFFER, W arden, (D.C. No. CIV-06-0628-HE) Defendant-Appellee. OR DER Before H E N RY, T YM KOV IC H, and HO LM ES, Circuit Judges. * M ichael C. Antonelli appeals the denial of a Petition for W rit of Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as w ell the denial of his request to proceed in form a pauperis. Since M r. Antonelli filed his complaint without the benefit of counsel, we liberally construe his claims. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Even after carefully reviewing the record, M r. Antonelli s petition is difficult to interpret, but we read it as alleging that his transfer from a medium security federal prison to a maximum security federal * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2); 10 TH C IR . R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. facility constituted an improper execution of his sentence. In addition, M r. Antonelli appears to seek relief from his conditions of confinement in the maximum security facility where he currently resides. To begin, we do not have jurisdiction over M r. Antonelli s challenge to the execution of his sentence because he is imprisoned in Kentucky, and [a] petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . . . must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined. Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). In addition, we hold that inasmuch as M r. A ntonelli attacks the conditions of his confinement, § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for such a challenge. B ecause M r. A ntonelli s petition fails to state a cognizable claim we dismiss the appeal without exercising jurisdiction, and we deny his request to proceed in form a pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (depriving federal courts of jurisdiction . . . where the prisoner fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted ). I. BACKGROUND M r. Antonelli is a federal prisoner who filed the instant petition while he was briefly incarcerated at the Federal Transfer Center (FTC) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 2005. In addition to this petition, M r. Antonelli filed another § 2241 petition while he was confined in a federal prison in El Reno, Oklahoma (El Reno petition). M r. Antonelli s stint in El Reno ended on February 3, 2005 when he was transferred to a facility in Forrest City, Arkansas to undergo a 500-hour 2 Residential Drug Abuse Program, a condition of his sentence. On M ay 15, he was moved from Forrest City to the FTC. He filed this petition before he was transferred to the maximum security facility in Inez (Big Sandy), Kentucky where he currently resides. In this § 2241 petition, M r. Antonelli complains that his transfer from Forrest City to Big Sandy, which he avers is a more dangerous prison, A plt s Br. at 5, constituted an improper execution of his sentence. Aplt s Br. at 1. He maintains that prison officials at Forrest City perpetrated a pattern of harassment [that] developed into a conspiracy to harass, inimidate [sic.], degrade, demean, embarras [sic.] and infringe upon [his] rights in retaliation for having exercised his first amendment [sic.] rights 2 to petition government for redress. Id. at 2. M r. Antonelli alleges that the perpetrators of this alleged retaliatory conspiracy inappropriately and fictitiously doctored [his security/custody classification status] in order to unjustly and unfairly effectuate a transfer from Forrest City M edium to a higher security/custody facility at [Big Sandy]. II. D ISC USSIO N A. J URISDICTION A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the prisoner is 2 The exercise of First Amendment rights to which M r. Antonelli refers is presumably the El Reno petition. 3 confined. Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1178 (1999) (internal citation omitted). Since M r. Antonelli is imprisoned in Kentucky, we do not have jurisdiction over the instant petition and therefore dismiss M r. A ntonelli s claim. Alternatively, in the event that we have misconstrued M r. Antonelli s largely incoherent pleadings and appeal, we hold that M r. Antonelli has failed to state a claim inasmuch as he has challenged the conditions of his confinement. In order to state a claim under § 2241, a petitioner must challenge the fact of, and not merely the conditions of confinement. See M cIntosh v. United States Parole Com n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997) (noting that a proper § 2241 petition challenges the fact or duration of a prisoner s confinement and seeks the remedy of immediate release or a shortened period of confinement. In contrast, a civil rights action . . . attacks the conditions of the prisoner s confinement and requests monetary compensation for such conditions. ) (internal citation omitted). [I]f a favorable resolution of the action would not automatically entitle the prisoner to release, the proper vehicle is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. In Boyce v. Ashcroft, 251 F.3d 911, 918 (10th Cir. 2001), judgment vacated on rehearing, 268 F.3d 953 (10th Cir. 2001), we applied the precedent cited above to a case with facts strikingly similar to the one at bar. As in this case, in Boyce, a federal prisoner alleged that he had been transferred from a medium to a maximum security facility in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. Reasoning that the traditional function of the writ is to 4 secure release from illegal custody, Boyce, 251 F.3d at 917, this court held that [a § 2241 petition] may not be used to challenge a prisoner s placement within a given jurisdictional entity, such as the federal prison system. Id. at 918. Although we vacated our holding in Boyce, we did so because M r. Boyce s transfer to the medium security facility he requested mooted the case. Boyce s reasoning remains persuasive and solidly supported by precedent. See M cIntosh, 115 F.3d at 811-12. ( [A]lthough a § 2241 attack on the execution of a sentence may challenge some matters that occur at prison, such as deprivation of good-time credits and other prison disciplinary matters, this does not make § 2241 actions like condition of confinement law suits, which are brought under civil rights laws. ) (internal citations omitted). In the instant case, like the petitioner in Boyce, M r. Antonelli s challenge to the execution of his sentence focuses on his transfer from a medium to a maximum security facility. He does not allege that M r. Keffer or any other prison official has increased his sentence or deprived him of any good-time credit. Thus, even liberally construing M r. Antonelli s claims, he has failed to allege a valid factual basis for a § 2241 petition. W e therefore agree with the magistrate judge that M r. Antonelli s suit should be filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of N arcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). B. T HREE S TRIKES U NDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) As the magistrate judge observed, this marks M r. Antonelli s ninth § 2241 5 petition in a seventeen-month period. M r. Antonelli s eight § 2241 petitions to the Eastern District of Arkansas prompted the court there to declare that [w]ith his repetitive, duplicative, frivolous, and abusive filings, [M r. Antonelli] has caused the judges of this Court to expend a substantial amount of time that otherwise could have been spent on petitions filed by prisoners who do not abuse the judicial process. Antonelli v. Sanders, No. 2:06cv00117, 2006 W L 1489206, at *8 (E.D. Ark. M ay 26, 2006). M r. Antonelli s flurry of frivolous petitions to the Arkansas district court is merely a tributary in the river of meritless litigation he has initiated as a prisoner in the federal system. See id. at *4 n.2 (noting that M r. Antonelli s frequent filings in the D.C. Circuit led to an unprecedented series of court rulings dismissing Antonelli s lawsuits, with prejudice, as a sanction for his misrepresentations that the court characterized as fraud ) (internal quotations omitted); id. at *8 n.5 (observing that M r. Antonelli filed as many as 94 actions at the district court level in the Eastern District of Texas, many of which were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim ). As a result of M r. Antonelli s frivolous civil rights filings, it is clear that M r. Antonelli surpassed the three-strike limit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) sometime ago. See Antonelli v. Hannah, 210 F.3d 374, at *1 (7th Cir. 2000) (noting that a district court had dismissed an action because M r. Antonelli had already acquired three strikes ). Thus, we remind M r. Antonelli that [i]n no event shall [he] bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or 6 proceeding under [§ 1915] . . . unless [he] is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). III. C ON CLU SIO N For the foregoing reasons, we DENY M r. Antonelli s request to proceed in forma pauperis and DISM ISS the petition. Entered for the Court, Elisabeth Shumaker Clerk of Court 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.