The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Munley
Before the court for disposition is Marino Almonte's*fn1
"Emergency Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus" (Doc. 1)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Marino Almonte ("petitioner") is an
inmate incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution-Schuylkill
("FCI-Schuylkill"). The matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for
Petitioner was convicted of illegal re-entry to the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. (Doc. 1, ¶ 1). He was sentenced to thirty-six (36) months in prison. (Id.) Petitioner is currently imprisoned in the FCI-Schuylkill after he was transferred from a Federal Prison in Tennessee to be closer to his family in New York City. (Id. ¶ 2). He is scheduled to be released from prison on March 14, 2012. (Id. ¶ 3). It appears that petitioner will be deported to the Dominican Republic following his release. (Id. ¶ 4).
In July 2009, petitioner claims that after a series of medical problems and treatments at FCI-Schuylkill, he experienced severe, debilitating and life-threatening health problems. (Id. ¶ 7). FCI-Schuylkill diagnosed petitioner as having H-Pylori, a bacterial infection of the stomach that is associated with peptic ulcers. (Doc. 1, ¶ 7, Doc. 3, Ex. 1).
Following the diagnosis, petitioner received treatment from July 2011 to September 2011. (Doc. 1, ¶ 8). The treatment consisted mainly of antibiotic prescriptions. During those two months, petitioner experienced weight loss of approximately fifty (50) pounds. (Id. ¶ 9). He claims that the treatment was unsuccessful and that his symptoms continue. He also claims that he spits up blood and excretes blood in his bowel movements. (Id. ¶ 10). Petitioner believes that if these symptoms continue he will not survive until the date of his scheduled release in March. (Id. ¶ 11).
Petitioner submitted various letters to administrative officials, elected officials, and other media outlets, but no one responded. (Id. ¶ 13). He unsuccessfully petitioned for transfer to the Western District of Tennessee, where he was convicted. (Id. ¶ 15). He also claims that he exhausted his administrative remedies with the prison's medical staff. (Id. ¶ 17).
Based on the foregoing, petitioner brings this emergency petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner requests the following relief: an immediate evidentiary hearing in support of his emergency petition; early release from FCI-Schuylkill and immediate deportation to the Dominican Republic; release to a halfway house, where petitioner will serve the remainder of his sentence; immediate furlough to a hospital for diagnosis and treatment; an independent medical examination at Schuylkill; and/or a temporary restraining order against the staff at FCI-Schuylkill. (Doc 1, ¶ 23).
Upon receipt of the emergency petition, we ordered the government to respond within five (5) days. (Doc. 2). The government timely filed a response to the petition on November 15, 2011. (Doc. 3). Upon review of the case, we find that no hearing is needed and that the matter is ripe for disposition.
Because this case is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("Section 2241"), the court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."). Section 2241 "confers jurisdiction on district courts to issue writs of habeas corpus in response to a petition from a state or federal prisoner who 'is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'" Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 484 (3d Cir. 2001). The federal habeas statute also requires that the petitioner be in custody "under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed." Lee v. Stickman, 357 F.3d 338, 342 n.3 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488,490-91 (1989)).
Section 2241, unlike other federal habeas statutes, "confers habeas jurisdiction to hear the petition of a federal prisoner who is challenging not the validity but the execution of his sentence." Coady, 251 F.3d at 485. Although the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to clearly define the meaning of "execution" in this context, it has cited approvingly holdings from other circuits finding that a Section 2241 motion properly challenges "'such matters as the administration of parole, computation of a prisoner's sentence by prison officials, prison disciplinary actions, prison transfers, type of detention and prison conditions.'" Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Jimian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 147 (2d Cir. 2001)).
In response to petitioner's emergency motion, respondent argues that habeas relief is not appropriate, where as here, petitioner is not challenging the validity of his detention or the length of his sentence, but instead the conditions of his confinement. See Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, ...