(HC) Dugger v. Brewer ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY DUGGER, Case No. 2:22-cv-02142-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE 13 v. SECTION 2241 CLAIM AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY 14 D. BREWER, DAYS 15 Respondent. ECF No. 1 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. After reviewing the petition, I find that it fails to state a viable claim. I 19 will give petitioner a chance to amend before recommending that this action be dismissed. 20 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 21 Section 2254 Cases.1 Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 22 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 23 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 24 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 25 Petitioner’s sole claim is that three points were unlawfully added to his custody 26 classification. ECF No. 1 at 3. Claims related solely to an inmate’s Bureau of Prisons custody 27 1 This rule may be applied to petitions brought under § 2241. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules 28 Governing § 2254 Cases. 1 | classification are not cognizable by way of a § 2241 action, however. See, e.g., Strausbaugh v. 2 | Shartle, CV-15-398-TUC-JAS (JR), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55900, *9 (D. Ariz. April 11, 2017) 3 | (“Claims that merely challenge a petitioner’s classification by the BOP without potentially 4 | shortening the petitioner’s sentence are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition.”); Parada v. 5 | Martinez, No. CV 19-4405 JAK (MRW), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163574, *4-5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6 | 24, 2019) (“[T]he Court cannot adjudicate Petitioner's contention that the BOP has misclassified 7 | him for prison housing or program purposes. A challenge to the conditions of his confinement 8 || rather than the legality of his confinement [ ] is not cognizable on habeas corpus review.”) 9 | Gnternal quotation marks omitted). The matter might be different if this classification were 10 | potentially to impact the length of petitioner’s sentence, but the petition does not, as best as I can 11 | tell, indicate that this is the case. 12 Petitioner may, if he chooses, file an amended petition that addresses this deficiency. If 13 || he does not, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 14 It is ORDERED that: 15 1. Petitioner may file an amended § 2241 petition within thirty days of this order’s 16 | entry. If he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons 17 || stated in this order. 18 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal § 2241 habeas form with 19 | this order. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ( q Sty - Dated: _ January 13, 2023 ow—— 23 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28