IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION

FRAZIER TODD, Jr. PETITIONER

No. 2:24-CV-00056 BSM/PSH

GARRETT, Warden, FCC-Forrest City RESPONDENT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. DISPOSITION Petitioner Frazier Todd, Jr. (“Todd”) filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

on March 22, 2024. The petition is not a direct challenge to Todd’s conviction.1 Rather, he claims he was denied due process and a 1 fundamentally fair hearing when his unit team relied on erroneous information in his presentence report to violate his equal protection rights. Specifically, Todd alleges

he was deemed ineligible for transfer to different, less restrictive housing (Todd refers to this as “CAMP”) because his presentence report erroneously reflects he was previously convicted of a sex offense. For relief, Todd asks that the Court direct the

Bureau of Prisons remove the erroneous information from his file. Respondent Chad Garrett (“Garrett”) moves to dismiss the petition, arguing the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the petition itself. Garrett contends Todd is not challenging his conviction or his sentence and is not seeking early release

from incarceration. Garrett views this petition as a challenge to the conditions-of- confinement, not to the fact or duration of Todd’s sentence. By Order dated June 3, 2024, Todd was notified of his opportunity to explain

why the petition should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in Garrett’s motion to dismiss. Further, Todd was notified of his option to consent to the conversion of the case into a conditions-of-confinement case. Doc. No. 8. Todd has not responded to the Court’s Order.

Todd’s challenge to his eligibility for transfer to less restrictive housing is not an attack on the duration of his confinement nor upon the constitutionality of his incarceration. Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). The relief sought by

2 Todd would, if successful, possibly impact the location where he might serve his term of imprisonment. However, the duration of his sentence would not be altered

nor would his underlying conviction be upended. Such a claim is not cognizable under § 2241. See Vaughan v. Hendrix, No. 219CV00046DPMJTR,

, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 20, 2019), (report and recommendation adopted as

modified), No. 2:19-CV-46-DPM,

(E.D. Ark. Sept. 13, 2019); Rodebaugh v. Haynes, No. 2:13-cv-00011-DPM-BD,

(E.D. Ark. March 13, 2013) (Order adopting Recommended Disposition and dismissing, for lack of habeas corpus jurisdiction, Rodebaugh's § 2241 Petition challenging the

BOP's Sex Offender PSF designation); and Butler v. Outlaw, No. 2:08-cv-00192- JLH/JTR,

(E.D. Ark. April 6, 2010) (Order adopting Recommended Disposition concluding petitioner's due process challenge to his Sex

Offender PSF failed to state a cognizable § 2241 claim, especially since the only adverse consequences alleged were inability to participate in certain programs and ineligibility for transfer to a camp facility). The motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be granted

and the § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed without prejudice.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED this Ist day of July, 2024.

UNITED STATES AO E JUDGE