Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hinds v. Hufford

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

December 12, 2017

WINSTON HINDS, Petitioner
v.
HOWARD L. HUFFORD, WARDEN,[1] Respondent

          MEMORANDUM

          ROBERT D. MARIANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner Winston Hinds ("Hinds"), an inmate currently confined at the Schuylkill Federal Prison Camp, in Minersville, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). In the habeas petition, Hinds challenges the General Counsel's alleged failure to respond to an administrative remedy appeal. [Id. at p. 2). The petition is ripe for disposition and, for the reasons that follow, will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

         I. Background

         A review of Hinds' administrative remedies reveals that he filed five administrative remedies from February 13, 2015, through March 20, 2017, the date he filed the instant petition. (Doc. 8-1, pp. 3-5, Declaration of Matthew Lavelle, BOP Attorney, ("Lavelle Decl.")

         ¶ 9). The remedies relate to the Residential Drug Abuse Program ("RDAP").[2] [Id.).

         On December 24, 2015, Hinds filed administrative remedy 846626-F1 regarding an RDAP denial. (Id. at ¶ 10; Doc. 8-1, p. 8, Administrative Remedy Generalized Retrieval). This remedy was rejected and Hinds was instructed to resubmit his appeal in proper form. (Id.). On December 31, 2015, Hinds filed administrative remedy 846626-F2 regarding an RDAP denial. (Lavelle Deck ¶ 11; Doc. 8-1, p. 8, Administrative Remedy Generalized Retrieval). This remedy was denied, and Hinds was instructed to file an appeal to the Northeast Regional Office. (Id.).

         On February 1, 2016, Hinds appealed the institutional denial of 846626-F2 to the Northeast Regional Office, designated as administrative remedy 846626-R1. (Lavelle Decl. ¶ 12; Doc. 8-1, p. 9, Administrative Remedy Generalized Retrieval). This remedy was rejected as not legible, and Hinds was instructed to re-file the remedy. (Id.).

         On February 10, 2016, Hinds filed administrative remedy 846626-R2 appealing the institutional denial of 846626-F2. (Lavelle Decl. ¶ 13; Doc. 8-1, p. 9, Administrative Remedy Generalized Retrieval). On March 10, 2016, the regional director denied the remedy and instructed Hinds to file an appeal to the BOP's Central Office. (Id.; Doc. 4, p. 4).

         On March 28, 2016, Hinds filed administrative remedy 846626-A1 appealing the regional denial of 846626-R2. (Lavelle Decl. ¶ 14; Doc. 8-1, p. 10, Administrative Remedy Generalized Retrieval). On April 11, 2016, the Central Office rejected the appeal. (Id.; Doc. 4, p.5). Hinds was advised that the remedy was in improper form and he was instructed to re-file the remedy in proper form. (Id.).

         There is no record that Hinds continued with remedy 846626. (Lavelle Decl. ¶ 15). The BOP Central Office has no record that Hinds attempted to re-file administrative remedy 846626. (Lavelle Decl. ¶ 16; Administrative Remedy Generalized Retrieval). Additionally, the Central Office does not have any record of correspondence from Hinds. (Lavelle Decl. ¶ 16). If Hinds filed administrative remedy 846626 at the Central Office level, it would have been logged into BOP's database, and Hinds would have received a notice of receipt with an anticipated response date. (Lavelle Decl. ¶ 17).

         The instant petition was filed on March 20, 2017. (Doc. 1).

         II. Discussion .

         A. Failure to State a Cognizable Claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

         A habeas petition may be brought by a prisoner who seeks to challenge either the fact or duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez,411 U.S. 45, 494 (1973); Tedford v. Hepting,990 F.2d 745, 748 (3d Cir. 1993). "Habeas relief is clearly quite limited: The underlying purpose of proceedings under the 'Great Writ' of habeas corpus has traditionally been to 'inquire into the legality of the detention, and the only judicial relief authorized was the discharge of the prisoner or his admission to bail, and that only if his detention were found to be unlawful.'" Learner v. Fauver,288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Powers of Congress and the Court Regarding the Availability and Scope of Review, 114 Har v. LRev. 1551, 1553 (2001)). However, when seeking to impose liability due to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.