Frederick Banks v. Warden Allenwood FCI

DLD-248 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 21-2011
___________
FREDERICK H. BANKS,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN ALLENWOOD FCI; 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-00840)
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 *
_________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
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 opened in front of him a piece of legal mail from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. While a letter stated that a judgment was
enclosed, the envelope did not contain the judgment. When he complained, his counselor
noted that the envelope had been opened in front of him. Banks argues that the prison
officials failed to provide him with the judgment which would have resulted in his
speedier release from confinement. He asked that the respondent be ordered to supply
him with a copy of the judgment and that he be discharged from custody.
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. 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 claim does not lie at the
“core of habeas” and, therefore, is not cognizable in a § 2241 petition. See Leamer v.
Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542-44 (3d Cir. 2002). He does not raise a challenge to the fact or
length of his sentence or confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500
(1973). Moreover, in the missing judgment that Banks refers to, the Court of Appeals
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Banks’ appeal of a Magistrate Judge’s denial of a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Banks v. Ma’at, No. 21-30017 (5th Cir. Mar.
3, 2021) (per curiam). Thus, even if this were a matter that Banks could challenge in
habeas, the judgment would not have resulted in a speedier release from confinement for
Banks.
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