United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
OPINION AND ORDER
O'CONNOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner, Dennis Boyle, a
federal prisoner confined in the Federal Medical Center in
Fort Worth, Texas (FMC-Fort Worth), against Eric Wilson,
warden of FMC-Fort Worth, Respondent. After considering the
pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has
concluded that the petition should be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
believed that Petitioner is confined pursuant to a 2015
conviction in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California for distribution of child
pornography. J., United States v. Boyle, Criminal Action No.
2:16-cr-048-KJM, ECF No. 69.
of this action, Petitioner complains of the conditions of his
confinement. Pet. 2, ECF No. 1. Specifically, Petitioner
claims that the Bureau of Prisons's policies regarding
access to the prison's electronic messaging
(“TRULINCS”) are unconstitutional on their face
and as applied. Pet'r's Mem. 2-10, ECF No. 2.
Petitioner “expects” this Court to order the
Bureau “to stop violating [his] Constitutional Rights
and put an injun[c]tion for relief [as] deemed necessary by
this Court.” Pet. 7, ECF No. 1.
28, United State Code, § 2243 authorizes a district
court to summarily dismiss a frivolous habeas-corpus petition
prior to any answer or other pleading by the
government.Therefore, no service has issued upon
prisoners may challenge the manner in which their
“sentence is carried out or the prison authorities'
determination of its duration” in a habeas-corpus
petition pursuant to § 2241. Pack v. Yusuff,
218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). However, habeas relief
“is not available to review questions unrelated to the
cause of detention.” Pierre v. United
States, 525 F.2d 933, 935 (5th Cir. 1976) (emphasis
added). The “sole function” for a habeas action
“is to grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or
custody and it cannot be used properly for any other
purpose.” Id. at 935-36. See also Carson
v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir.1997) (holding a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus permits a petitioner to
seek immediate or earlier release from custody, whereas a
civil-rights action provides the proper avenue to challenge
unconstitutional conditions of confinement and prison
procedures). Therefore, if a prisoner seeks only injunctive
relief, other than an injunction shortening the duration of
confinement, he is not entitled to relief in a habeas-corpus
proceeding. Hernandez v. Garrison, 916 F.2d 291, 293
(5th Cir. 1990).
Petitioner's claims do not concern the fact or duration
of his confinement, which is the “essence of
habeas.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
498-99 (1973). Instead, he seeks injunctive relief enjoining
Respondent from continuing to deny him access to TRULINCS.
Pet. 3, ECF No. 1. Thus, taken at face value, the petition
relating to the conditions of Petitioner's confinement is
not cognizable on habeas review and should be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
Carson, 112 F.3d at 820-21; Spina v. Aaron,
821 F.2d 1126, 1128 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that the core
issue in determining whether a prisoner must pursue habeas
corpus relief rather than a civil-rights action is to
determine whether the prisoner challenges the fact or
duration of his confinement or merely the rules, customs, and
procedures affecting conditions of confinement).
reasons discussed herein, Petitioner's petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is
DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A
certificate of appealability is DENIED.