The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. John E. Jones III
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:
Petitioner Tracy Pinkney ("Petitioner" or "Pinkney"), an inmate presently confined at the Schuylkill Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI Schuylkill") in Minersville, Pennsylvania, initiated the above action pro se by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2241. (Doc. 1.) He has paid the required $5.00 filing fee. (Doc. 3.) For the reasons set forth below, the Petition will be dismissed without prejudice to any right Pinkney may have to reassert his claims in a properly filed civil rights action.
The nine (9) grounds asserted by Pinkney in his Petition may be summarized as follows:
(1) the FCI Schuylkill staff has created unsafe conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment by failing to install security cameras (Doc. 1 at 10);
(2) Pinkney's right of access to the courts has been violated by the denial of his request to correspond with his co-defendant (id. at 11-13);
(3) the Federal Bureau of Prisons has violated its own rules by failing to give Pinkney a pay raise or exemption (id. at 14);
(4) Pinkney's Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment rights to due process and access to the courts were violated through the handling of his administrative remedies by Captain Taggart and Warden Sniezek (id. at 15-16);
(5) the FCI Schuylkill staff has created unsafe conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment by leaving Pinkney's unit unattended by a correctional officer on multiple occasions (id. at 17);
(6) the FCI Schuylkill staff is misappropriating funds as evidenced by the fact that Pinkney paid $5.10 for a copy card at the commissary, but the card only had a $3.90 value, and by the fact that the institution does not place proceeds from recycling back into inmate trust fund accounts (id. at 18);
(7) FCI Schuylkill is not in compliance with national policy regarding the "national menu" for breakfast, and also is misappropriating funds (id. at 19-20);
(8) Physician Assistant Rush and the Health Administrator exhibited deliberate indifference to Pinkney's serious medical needs when Pinkney attended a medical appointment for a bump on his neck, and Rush just told him that the institution does not provide cosmetic surgery and the Health Administrator advised him to return when the bump became infected (id. at 21); and
(9) Case Manager Manback violated BOP policy and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment in her manner of conducting Pinkney's classification and program review. (id. at 22-24).
As relief, Pinkney requests that this Court order "Defendants" to adhere to the rules and regulations set forth by the United States Supreme Court and to provide any ...