Moore v. Leu, No. 7:2019cv00575 - Document 2 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 9/12/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERZSAT OFFICE U.G.DlSX C0Ur DANVILLE,VA FILED IN TH E U N ITE D STA TES D ISTR ICT CO U R T FO R TH E W ESTER N D ISTR ICT O F VIR G IN IA R O A N O U D IV ISIO N SEP j2 2919 JUL C.DUDLG CLEM BK EPUW CLE M ICH AEL M O O R E, Petitioner, CivilA ction N o.7:19:v00575 M EM O RANDUM O PINION LEU, By: Hon.Jacltson L.K iser Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge R espondent. M ichaelM oore,a federalinmateproceeding pre K ,filed apetition forwritofhabeascorpus ptlrsuantto 28U.S.C.j 2241,challenginghishousing assignment.Having revieWedhispetition,I concludethatM oore'sclaim isnotproperly raisedin a j2241petition and,therefore,dismissthe petitionwithoutprejudicepursuanttoRules1(b)and4oftheRulesGoverningSection2254Cases. M ooreallegesthatheisbçing housed in theSpecialHousing Unit(;&SHU'')attheUnited States Penitentiary in Lee County,Virgii a,in violation of an Executive Order which states that inmatesm ay notbe housed in SHU form ore than sixty days.He also claim s thata unitm anager advised him thathewillrem ain housed in SHU untilDecember6,2019,when heisscheduled to be released from incarceration.Asrelief,M oore seekstransferto a generalpopulation unitatanother institution. A habeas petition under j 2241 shall not issue to a federalprisoner unless the court concludesthathe isin custody in violation oftheConstitution,laws,ortreatiesoftheUnited States. Moore v. Leu 28 U.S.C. j 2241(c)(3).The core of a habeas corpus adion is a requestto get out ofjail Doc. 2 im mediately,or sooner than currently scheduled.See Preiser v.Rodricuez,411 U.S.475, 489 (1973).(çgcqonstitutional claims thatmerely challenge the conditions of a gfederalj prisoner's cov nement...falloutside ofthatcore''and m ustbe raised in a civilaction,ptlrsuantto Bivensv. Six Unknown Named Agents ofFed.Btlreau ofNarcotics,403 U.S.388 (1971).See Nelson v. Dockets.Justia.com Cnmpbell,541U.S.637,643 (2004);see also M lzhammad v.Close,540 U.S.749,750 (2004) (Eichallenges to the validity of any continement orto particulars affecting its dttration are the province ofhabeas cop usy''whereasçtrequestsforrelieftum ing on circum stancesof confinement maybepresented''inacivilrightsactionl;M oorev.Driver,No.1:07cv166,2008U.S.Dist.LEXIS 85896,at*7,2008 W L 4661478,at*3 (N.D.W .Va.Od.21,2008)(a claim regarding custody classiikationcannotberaisedinthecontextofaj2241petition). ln hisj2241petition,M oo<edoesno1allegeany ground onwllic. lïheisentitledtoashorte: term ofconsnem ent.Becausethe cor: ofitiscomplaintdoesnotconcern the factorduration ofhis incarceration,hisclaim isnotproperly beforemeasahabeasclaim underj2241.Therefore,lwill dismiss Moore's habeas petition withoutprejudice forfailing to state a claim upon which the requested reliefcanbegrantedal ENTERED thisto?'hday ofSeptember, 2019. SE IOR ITED STA T S DISTR ICT JU DG E 11decline to construe M oore'spetition as acomplaintpursuantto Bivensbecause hisallegationsare insufficienttostateaclaim againstany defendant.SeeW estv.Atkins,487U.S.42 (1988)(tostateacauseof actionunderj1983,aplaintiffmustallùgefactsindicatingthathehasbeen deprived ofrightsguaranteedby the Constitution orlaw softhe United Statesand thatthis deprivation resulted from conductcom m itted by a person actin! undercolorofstatelaw);see.e.a.,BellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,555 (2007) (noting aplalntiff'sbasisforreliefttrequiresmore than labelsand conciusions....'').Further,courtshave long held thata prison inmate hasno interestofconstitutionalmagnitude in eitherhissecurity classification orhisplaceofconfinement.Olim v.W àkinekona.461U.S.238,345-46(1983)9M eachum v.Fano, '427U.S. 215,225 (1976).1note,however,thatdismissalofthis j 2241 petition is without prejudice to M oore's opportunity to file a Bivens action nam ing defendants and specifically describing how each defendant violated hisfederalrights.
]]>
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.
