United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CYNTHIA REED EDDY, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner, Jay Bonanza Briley, filed a "Petition to Quash or Revoke Unconstitutional Management Variable Pursuant to Habeas Corpus Action Under 28 U.S.C., Section 2241(a)(3)." It is recommended that the petition be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Petitioner, Jay Bonanza Briley ("Petitioner" or "Briley"), a federal prisoner currently confined at Federal Correction Institution Loretto ("FCI Loretto") in Loretto, Pennsylvania, filed the instant Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF Nos. 1 and 3), seeking the Court to order the Bureau of Prison ("BOP") to expunge all findings pertaining to his security classification level and that he be allowed to serve his sentence on home confinement or, in the alternative, at a federal prison camp. He argues that the BOP's actions were unconstitutional because he was deprived of due process of law.
A. Relevant Background
Briley was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on March 11, 2009, to one count of Assaulting, Obstructing, and Impeding a Federal Officer; two counts of Obstructing and Impeding a Federal Officer; and one count of Disorderly Conduct - Obscene Acts. ( See Response, ECF No. 12-1). His projected release date from his federal sentence is December 21, 2018. A Greater Security Management Variable was applied to Briley's custody classification score due to the facts involved in his criminal case, specifically that Briley used violence against a federal officer and resisted arrest.
On September 9, 2014, Briley initiated this lawsuit by the filing of the instant habeas petition. However, the case was ordered statistically closed on September 15, 2014, as the Petition had been received without a filing fee or the forms required to proceed in forma pauperis. The next day, the case was reopened as Briley paid the filing fee and the Petition was filed.
Respondent has filed his Response (ECF No. 12) in which he argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Briley's custody classification challenge. Respondent further argues that to the extent the Court construes the petition to allege a due process violation, Briley does not have a protected interest in his classification or place of confinement. Respondent also argues that Briley failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Section 2241 provides in relevant part:
(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless... He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws ...