Frederick Banks v. Allenwood Trust Fund Dept

DLD-247 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 21-2030
___________
FREDERICK H. BANKS,
Appellant
v.
ALLENWOOD TRUST FUND DEPARTMENT; FNU SWOWICKI;
L. HAAS, Education; WARDEN ALLENWOOD FCI; LT. CLOUSER;
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-21-cv-00734)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 12, 2021
Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 2, 2021)
_________
OPINION*
_________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM
Frederick Banks appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his habeas
petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that follow, we will
summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
Banks, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for habeas corpus in which he alleged
that prison officials removed his thumbprint from a prison computer system to prevent
him from printing mailing labels, accessing email, or performing legal research. He also
asserted that his stimulus check was not deposited into his prison account and that his
emails to his attorney were held by prison officials. He requested discharge from
custody, certification of a class action, and appointment of class counsel.
The District Court dismissed the petition before service, concluding that Banks did
not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement and a habeas petition was not an
appropriate vehicle for his complaint of a civil rights violation. This dismissal was
without prejudice to Banks’ raising his claims in a civil rights action. The District Court
declined to consider Banks’ request for class certification and appointment of class
counsel. Banks filed a notice of appeal. Banks was notified that his appeal would be
considered for possible summary action but has not filed any response to the notice.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s legal conclusions. Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536,
538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). We may summarily affirm a district court’s decision
2
“on any basis supported by the record” if the appeal fails to present a substantial question.
See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
The District Court did not err in concluding that Banks’s claims do not lie at the
“core of habeas” and, therefore, are not cognizable in a § 2241 petition. See Leamer v.
Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542-44 (3d Cir. 2002). None of his claims challenged the fact or
length of his sentence or confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500
(1973).
For the reasons above, as well as those set forth by the District Court, this appeal
does not present a substantial question. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the
District Court’s judgment.
3