United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
October 25, 2016, Samuel Chinnis, an inmate at the United
States Penitentiary at Canaan, Waymart, Pennsylvania
(“USP-Canaan”), filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241, in which he
challenges his placement and confinement at USP-Canaan. (Doc.
No. 1.) Chinnis does not challenge his conviction or the fact
or duration of his confinement. (Id.) Chinnis only
challenges the decision to confine him at USP-Canaan.
(Id.) Chinnis essentially claims that his criminal
history does not warrant his placement at a United States
Penitentiary. (Id.) Chinnis alleges that he is 29
years old, was convicted of the offense of merely possessing
a firearm as a convicted felon, and that his only prior
offense involved imprisonment for two years. (Id.)
He further claims that he is not safe at USP-Canaan because
there are inmates at that institution who pose a threat to
his safety. (Id.) Chinnis requests that he be
transferred to another facility of the Bureau of Prisons.
(Id.) Along with the petition Chinnis submitted the
$5.00 filing fee.
petition will now be given preliminary consideration pursuant
to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.
foll. § 2254, as made applicable to § 2241 cases by
Rule 1 thereof. For the reasons set forth below the
petition will be dismissed.
well-settled that a habeas corpus petition may be brought by
a prisoner who seeks to challenge either the fact or duration
of his confinement in prison. Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475 (1973); see also Rinaldi v. Zickefoose,
2013 WL 4812491, at *1 (M.D. Pa. 2013)(Rambo, J.)(citing
Preiser v. Rodriguez). However, “[f]ederal
habeas corpus review is available only ‘where the
deprivation of rights is such that it necessarily impacts the
fact or length of detention.'” Rinaldi,
2013 WL 4812491, at *1 (quoting Leamer v. Fauver,
288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002)); see also Descamps v.
Warden Lewisburg USP, 617 Fed.Appx. 110, 111 (3d Cir.
2015)(the purpose of a habeas petition is to challenge the
fact or duration of confinement not the conditions of
confinement); McCarthy v. Warden, USP
Lewisburg, 417 Fed.Appx. 128, 129-130 (3d Cir.
2011)(same); Brown v. Bledsoe, 405 Fed.Appx. 575,
576-577 (3d Cir. 2011)(same); Bedenfield v. Warden
Lewisburg, 393 Fed.Appx. 32, 33 (3d Cir. 2010)(same).
well-settled that a prisoner has no justifiable expectation
that he will be incarcerated in a particular prison. Olim
v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983). With respect to
federal prisoners, the Bureau of Prisons has the power,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), to "transfer a
prisoner from one facility to another at any time."
Prows v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 981 F.2d 466,
469 n.3 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S.
830, 114 S.Ct. 98 (1993); Cardenas v. Wigen, 921
F.Supp. 286, 291 (E.D. Pa. 1996). Section 3621(b) authorizes
the Bureau "to designate the place of confinement for
purposes of serving federal sentences of imprisonment."
Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1991).
Thus, it is clear that decisions regarding Chinnis'
designation are within the sound discretion of the BOP, an
agency under the Justice Department and overseen by the
Attorney General. Accordingly, “habeas corpus is not an
appropriate or available federal remedy.” Linnen v.
Armainis, 991 F.2d 1102, 1109 (3d Cir. 1993).
because Chinnis is not detained because of process issued by
a state court and the petition is not brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255, no action by this court with respect to a
certificate of appealability is necessary.
appropriate order will be entered.
 Rule 4 states in pertinent part that
“[t]he clerk must promptly forward the petition to a
judge under the court's assignment procedure, and the
judge must promptly examine it. If it plainly appears from
the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must
dismiss the petition . . . .”
 In Descamps, a per curiam and
non-precedential opinion, the Court of Appeals summarily
affirmed the order of the district court “because no
substantial question [was] presented by [the] appeal.”
617 Fed.Appx. at 111. In so doing the Court citing Leamer
v. Fauver, a precedential opinion, stated as follows:
“To the extent that Descamps challenged the adequacy of
the dental and mental care he is receiving, he is ...