Handler-Jacobs v. Upton

          OPINION AND ORDER

          REED O'CONNOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner, Ruby Handler-Jacobs (“Handler-Jacobs”), a federal prisoner confined in the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas (FMC-Carswell), against Jody R. Upton, Warden of FMC-Carswell, Respondent. (ECF No. 1.) After considering the pleading and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be summarily dismissed.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Petitioner Handler-Jacobs is serving a 24-month term of imprisonment for her 2018 conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for conspiracy to impersonate an officer or employee of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. Pet. 3, ECF No. 1; J., United States v. Handler-Jacobs, No. 16-cr-800-3 (PGG), ECF No. 236.^[2] In this § 2241 petition, she claims that she is being held past the date of release under the “First Step Act Elderly 60 Plus Pilot Program.” She recites the following:

[T]his program would have released me to Home Confinement on April 25, 2019 if not for the mis-management of my case handled at FMC-Carswell. I applied for release in March of 2019 for this program, I am attaching documents that [I] used to file. I am also attaching the documents showing that the unit manager applied for 10% Home Confinement. I have been held 7 weeks past the time that I should have been released, I am seeking damages for the days past the time that I should have been released.

         Pet. 5, ECF No. 1. Handler-Jacobs requests the following relief:

I am seeking damages for the time I am spending incarcerated when I could have been released under this Elderly 60 plus program. I am seeking damages in the amount of 10, 000 for every week that I am still incarcerated past April 25, 2019.

Id. at 7.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Title 28, United State Code, section 2243 authorizes a district court to summarily dismiss a frivolous habeas-corpus petition prior to any answer or other pleading by the government.^[3]Therefore, no service has issued upon Respondent.

         Handler-Jacobs's seeks only monetary damages in her petition. A claim for monetary damages, however, is not cognizable on habeas review. Instead, an inmate seeking monetary damages for perceived violations of her constitutional rights must file an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), on the appropriate civil complaint form against the responsible officials. Habeas relief is not available to review questions unrelated to the fact or duration of one's incarceration that would result in an earlier release. Preiser v. Rodruguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973).

         III. CONCLUSION and ORDER

         For the reasons discussed herein, Handler-Jacobs's § 2241 petition seeking only monetary damages is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.^[4]

         SO ...