UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
June 4, 2012
DONALD TOPPER, PETITIONER
WAYNE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, SCI-WAYMART, AND PA ATTORNEY GENERAL, RESPONDENTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Malachy E. Mannion United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION*fn1
Petitioner, currently an inmate at the State Correctional Institution, Waymart, ("SCI-Waymart"), Pennsylvania, filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he challenges his transfer to the Wayne County Correctional Facility. (Doc. No. 1). The petitioner has submitted the proper filing fee. (Doc. No. 4). The petition will be given preliminary consideration pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 28 U.S.C. foll. §2254.
In his filing, the petitioner claims that he was sentenced to be placed in a State Correctional Institution, but was transferred from SCI-Waymart to the Wayne County Correctional Facility, where he lost certain privileges he would have enjoyed at the state facility. The petitioner, who was still housed at the Wayne County Correctional Facility at the time he filed this action, requests that he be placed back in SCI-Waymart.
Initially, the petitioner filed the instant action as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. However, the petitioner does not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement as would be proper in a habeas action, but only the conditions thereof. Therefore, the instant action does not sound in habeas, but sounds in civil rights. Considering the action as such, it has long been held that an inmate has no right to placement in any particular correctional institution or in any particular section within an institution. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 and n.9 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976); Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 358, n.16 (3d Cir. 1992); Flanagan v. Shively, 783 F.Supp. 922 (M.D.Pa.), aff'd 980 F.2d 722 (3d Cir. 1992). Therefore, the action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Moreover, in recent correspondence to the court, the petitioner indicates that, since the filing of the instant action, he has been returned to SCI- Waymart. As such, his requested relief is now moot. (Doc. No. 6).
On the basis of the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: the instant action, (Doc. No. 1), be DISMISSED for the petitioner's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or, in the alternative, as moot.
Malachy E. Mannion