United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division
JEREMY M. CARTER, Petitioner,
WARDEN J.V. FLOURNOY, Respondent.
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Jeremy Carter (“Carter”), who is currently housed
at the Federal Correctional Institution in Estill, South
Carolina, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while he was housed at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Jesup, Georgia (“FCI
Jesup”). (Doc. 1). Respondent filed a Response. (Doc.
10). For the reasons which follow, I
RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS without
prejudice Carter's Petition,
DIRECT the Clerk of Court to
CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate
judgment of dismissal, and DENY Carter
in forma pauperis status on appeal.
jury trial, Carter was sentenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to 262
months' imprisonment for bank robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a), and possession of ammunition by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
(Doc. 10-1 at 13-14). Carter has a projected release date of
March 11, 2021, via good-conduct-time release. (Id.
Petition, which he filed while he was housed at FCI Jesup,
Carter asserts Respondent denied him access to the
administrative remedies procedures at FCI Jesup. (Doc. 1 at
1). Carter also asserts he was placed in administrative
segregation as retaliation for filing grievances on previous
occasions and that the conditions in administrative
segregation were “unsanitary and unsafe.”
(Id. at 2, 4). Carter contends he sustained blunt
force trauma to his head after he repeatedly banged his head
against the wall, and Respondent ignored Carter's
requests for medical treatment for his head injury and denied
him “essential psychiatric treatment.”
(Id. at 2-3). In addition, Carter maintains
Respondent restricted his access to the law library, which
restricted his access to the courts. (Id. at 3-4).
Carter asks the Court to order Respondent to improve the
conditions of his confinement and his release from
administrative segregation. (Id. at 5-6).
argues Carter does not set forth claims appropriate for
habeas corpus relief. Respondent also argues Carter's
Petition is now moot, as he has been transferred to another
facility. Finally, Respondent states Carter failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies. (Doc. 10).
Whether Carter can Proceed Pursuant to Section 2241
Carter brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
the claims he asserts cannot be brought under that statute.
Rather, Carter's claims should ordinarily have been
brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
The distinction between claims which may be brought under
Bivens and those which must be brought as habeas
petitions is reasonably well-settled. Claims in which
prisoners challenge the circumstances of their confinement
are civil rights actions, not habeas corpus actions. See,
e.g., Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579
(2006); Gorrell v. Hastings, 541 Fed.Appx. 943, 945
(11th Cir. 2013). Habeas actions, in contrast, explicitly or
by necessary implication, challenge a prisoner's
conviction or the sentence imposed on him by a court (or
under the administrative system implementing the judgment).
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). For
example, when a prisoner makes a claim that, if successful,
could shorten or invalidate his term of imprisonment, the
claim must be brought as a habeas petition, not as a civil
rights claim. See, e.g., Edwards v.
Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994).
cannot bring the claims he asserts via a habeas petition. He
contests the conditions of his confinement, and such claims
are not cognizable under Section 2241. Carter requests access
to grievance forms, release from administrative detention,
medical and mental health treatment, access to the law
library, and repairs to the unsafe conditions in the special
housing unit. (Doc. 1 at 5-6). Carter's requested relief
does not fall within the purview of Section 2241. Moreover,
Carter does not assert any challenge to his sentence,
conviction, or duration of confinement.
I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS
without prejudice Carter's 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Petition. It is unnecessary to address the remaining grounds
for dismissal Respondent advances.
Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis
Court should also deny Carter leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. Though Carter has, of course, not yet filed a
notice of appeal, it would be appropriate to address these
issues in the Court's order of dismissal. Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that appeal is not taken in
good faith “before or after the notice of appeal is
appeal cannot be taken in forma pauperis if the
trial court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good
faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).
Good faith in this context must be judged by an objective
standard. Busch v. County of Volusia, 189 F.R.D.
687, 691 (M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not proceed in good
faith when he seeks to advance a frivolous claim or argument.
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445
(1962). A claim or argument is frivolous when it appears the
factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal
theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carroll v.
Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). An in
forma pauperis action is frivolous and not brought in
good faith if it is “without ...