United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
STEVEN L. RAY, Petitioner
v.
SCOTT FINLEY, WARDEN, Respondent
MEMORANDUM
A.
RICHARD CAPUTO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Steven
L. Ray, an individual confined at the prison camp located at
the Schuylkill Federal Correctional Complex (FCC Schuylkill)
in Minersville, Pennsylvania, filed this petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.)
Petitioner challenges his conditions of confinement at his
former prisons, primarily the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention
Center (MDC Brooklyn), due to the BOP's failure to
properly classify him and his extended stays in solitary
confinement where Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officials deprived
him of many privileges afforded inmates in general
population. He also seeks a reduction of his sentence due to
his significant assistant to the BOP as a confidential
informant. (Id.) On June 28, 2019, the Court issued
an Administrative Order directing Mr. Ray to pay the $5.00
filing fee in this matter. Mr. Ray has since paid the
requisite filing fee. (ECF Nos. 16 and 19.) Since then, Mr.
Ray has filed two motions for compassionate release, one
pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure (ECF No. 17), and the other based on the First Step
Act (ECF No. 24). Also pending is an “Emergency
motion” seeking his immediate release and motion for
this Court to issue a show cause order and hold a hearing
(ECF No. 32).
For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will summarily dismiss the
Petition and deny all pending motions.
I.
Standard of Review
This
matter is before the Court for screening. See28
U.S.C. § 2243. The Petition has been given preliminary
consideration pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28
U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (applicable to § 2241 petitions
under Rule 1(b)); see also Patton v.
Fenton, 491 F.Supp. 156, 158-59 (M.D. Pa. 1979)
(explaining that Rule 4 is “applicable to Section 2241
petitions through rule 1(b)”). Rule 4 provides in
pertinent part: “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 and direct the clerk to notify the
petitioner.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts.
Federal
law provides two main avenues of relief to incarcerated
persons: a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a
civil-rights complaint. See Muhammad v.
Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750, 125 S.Ct. 1303, 1304, 158
L.Ed.2d 32 (2004) (per curiam). “Although both §
1983 and habeas corpus allow prisoners to challenge
unconstitutional conduct by state officers, the two are not
coextensive either in purpose of effect.” Leamer v.
Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002).
“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to
particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas
corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 92
S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); requests for relief
turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a
§ 1983 action.” Muhammad, 540 U.S. at
750, 124 S.Ct. at 1304. “[W]hen the challenge is to a
condition of confinement such that a finding in
plaintiff's favor would not alter his sentence or undo
his conviction, an action under § 1983 is
appropriate.” Leamer, 288 F.3d at
542.[1]
II.
Background
Petitioner,
Steven Ray, was convicted pursuant to guilty pleas in the
United States District Court for the Western District of New
York of mail fraud and forgery of United States Treasury
checks, and obstruction of justice in connection with the
sentencing on the mail fraud and forgery counts. United
States v. Ray, 713 Fed.Appx. 20 (2d Cir. 2017). On
September 16, 2016, he received an 84-month sentence on the
mail fraud and forgery plea and a concurrent 84-month
sentence on the obstruction plea and ordered to pay
restitution. (Id.) His projected release date is
September 20, 2021.[2]
In his
Petition, Mr. Ray challenges the “conditions of [his]
confinement.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) First, Mr. Ray claims
the BOP misclassified him resulting in his receipt of a
higher than warranted security classification level.
Following his August 2015 plea agreement, Mr. Ray was held as
a presentenced prisoner at the Bath County Jail (New York)
for 13 months. During this time, he was housed in the
maximum-security section of the prison. In October 2016 he
was transferred to “Youngstown, PA” and again
housed in maximum security and “with greatly restricted
privileges”. (Id. at 8.) In November 2015, Mr.
Ray was transferred to USP Allenwood Low, “inconsistent
with [his] designation would have demanded, at which [he]
served 13 months as a result of this mistaken designation,
the conditions were substantially inferior of those enjoy[ed]
at a Prison Camp.” (Id.) He spent 40 days in
“solitary confinement” there due to staff's
“failure to protect [his] safety.” (Id.)
After
the BOP “recognized the miss designation (sic)
imposed” on Petitioner, the BOP sent him to MDC
Brooklyn, an even less desirable facility than a
“regular camp.” (Id.) While at MDC
Brooklyn, in November 2017, Mr. Ray had institutional safety
concerns that he shared with BOP staff. (Id. at 9.)
During this meeting BOP staff recruited Mr. Ray as a
confidential informant to identify and locate inmates with
cell phones inside the institution. Mr. Ray had five jobs
“throughout MDC [Brooklyn] with almost access [to]
everywhere.” (Id.) The information he provided
to BOP officials led to the discovery 15 cell phones and the
11 arrests of individuals. (Id.)
In
April 2018, an inmate who was arrested for possession of a
cell phone based on Mr. Ray's information told Mr. Ray he
had concerns for his safety. Mr. Ray notified MDC Brooklyn
staff. Staff's initial attempt to secure a transfer for
Mr. Ray was denied. In June 2018, after again being
confronted and threatened by other inmates, Mr. Ray went to
MDC staff. (Id. at 13.) Staff advised Mr. Ray they
were “getting [him] out of here” and placed him
in protective custody for a threat assessment/transfer.
(Id.) At the conclusion of the investigation, Mr.
Ray was ordered to return to general population. Mr. Ray,
following the instructions of the Warden, refused to return
to general population. Mr. Ray remained in solitary
confinement for more than 260 days. During that time, he
became depressed and received medical and mental health
treatment from MDC Brooklyn staff. (Id. at 19.)
In
February 2019, MDC Brooklyn staff advised Mr. Ray he was to
be transferred to “Schuylkill Camp”.
(Id. at 23.) On February 20, 2019, Mr. Ray was
temporarily transferred to USP-Canaan. Five days later he was
transferred to the Schuylkill Camp. (Id. at 24.) At
Schuylkill he received “a great job” and
continued to receive medical care. (Id.) Mr. Ray
believes due to the “mishandling of his custody”
status as well as his “courage and conduct in providing
assistance to the Government, ” the only remedy is his
“immediate and irrevocable release.”
(Id. at 25.)
III.
Discussion
A.
Mr. Ray's ...