Hodges v. Eichenlaub, No. 2:2007cv14874 - Document 4 (E.D. Mich. 2008)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER Summarily Dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Signed by District Judge David M Lawson. (LHac)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TOMMIE LEE HODGES, Petitioner, Civil No. 07-14874 Honorable David M. Lawson v. L. C. EICHENLAUB, Respondent. _______________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION The petitioner, Tommie Lee Hodges, a federal prisoner currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institute in Milan, Michigan, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 complaining that a representative of the United States Marshals Service placed improper information in his file that resulted in an erroneous prison classification. A complaint of that nature cannot be entertained in an action for habeas corpus, and therefore the petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court will dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus. I. The petitioner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and conspiracy to launder money, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(I), 1956(a)(1)(B)(I), 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii) and 1956(h), in this District before the Honorable Avern Cohn and was sentenced on October 2, 2007 to 150 months imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. In his habeas petition, the petitioner asserts that the United States Marshals Service has placed false information in his file, which has caused the Federal Bureau of Prisons ( BOP ) to give him an improper prison classification. The petitioner states that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies, but claims that his complaint does not involve the BOP. II. After a petition for habeas corpus is filed, the Court must undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If, after preliminary consideration, the Court determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court must summarily dismiss the petition. Id., see also Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court has the duty to screen out petitions that lack merit on their face). A federal district court is authorized to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1999); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. fol. § 2254. The Court has undertaken the preliminary review required by Rule 4 and concludes that the petition must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is wellsettled that prison classifications, assignments, and transfers are functions wholly within the discretion of the BOP. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976). Federal prisoners do not have a due process liberty interest in their classification while incarcerated. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976). Similarly, federal prisoners do not have a liberty interest in remaining free from discretionary transfers to less agreeable prisons. Meachum, 427 U.S. at 225. Prisoners also have no right to be housed in a -2- particular institution or a particular part of an institution. See Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976); Caderno v. Thoms, 50 F. App x. 200, 201 (6th Cir. 2002) (collecting pertinent cases). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that a federal inmate who challenges his security classification fails to state a cognizable claim upon habeas review. See Bazuaye v Bogan, No. 93-2085, 1994 WL 75895, *2 (6th Cir. 1994) (unpublished) (citing Olim, 461 U.S. at 245, and Newell v. Brown, 981 F.2d 880, 883 (6th Cir. 1992)); accord Braswell v. Gallegos, 82 F. App x. 633, 636 (10th Cir. 2003) (district court properly denied federal prisoner s § 2241 petition challenging his classification)). That is all the petition in this case contains. Because the petitioner challenges his prison classification in this action, albeit as a result of the actions of certain members of the Marshal s Service, he fails to state a claim upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. III. For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that the petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which habeas relief may be granted in his petition. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. s/David M. Lawson DAVID M. LAWSON United States District Judge Dated: September 18, 2008 -3- PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on September 18, 2008. s/Felicia M. Moses FELICIA M. MOSES -4-
]]>
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.
