Murray v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

GLD-226 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-2490
___________
JAMES MURRAY,
Appellant
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS;
HARRELL WATTS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 3:12-cv-00771)
District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 12, 2012
Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and BARRY, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 24, 2012 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
James Murray filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He claimed that he was being
1
denied access to legal materials and was not allowed to act in court on his own behalf.
The District Court dismissed the petition, and we will summarily affirm its
judgment.1 Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 248 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); see also
3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. While habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241can be used to challenge the “execution” of a federal sentence, Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681
F.3d 533, 535 (3d Cir. 2012), they cannot be used to attack confinement conditions.
Rather, such claims should be raised in a civil-rights suit. See Leamer v. Fauver, 288
F.3d 532, 544 (3d Cir. 2002); see also Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 520, 532 (2002)
(discussing broad definition of “prison conditions”); Brown v. Mills, 639 F.3d 733, 734
(6th Cir. 2011) (approving the conversion of a § 2241 petition that attacked, inter alia,
“restricting . . . access to legal materials [and] to the law library” as a civil-rights
complaint). The District Court therefore correctly dismissed the petition without
prejudice to Murray’s commencing another action in the proper context.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the District Court will be affirmed.
Murray’s motion to expedite is denied as moot.
1
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and conduct de novo review. Ballentine
v. United States, 486 F.3d 806, 808 (3d Cir. 2007); Fowler v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 94
F.3d 835, 837 (3d Cir. 1996).
2