(HC) Dugger v. Brewer

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TIMOTHY DUGGER, Case No. 2:22-cv-02142-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE 13 v. SECTION 2241 CLAIM AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY D. BREWER, DAYS 15 Respondent. ECF No. 1 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. After reviewing the petition, I find that it fails to state a viable claim. I will give petitioner a chance to amend before recommending that this action be dismissed.

20 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.1 Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).

25 Petitioner’s sole claim is that three points were unlawfully added to his custody classification. ECF No. 1 at 3. Claims related solely to an inmate’s Bureau of Prisons custody This rule may be applied to petitions brought under § 2241. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

1 | classification are not cognizable by way of a § 2241 action, however. See, e.g., Strausbaugh v. | Shartle, CV-15-398-TUC-JAS (JR), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55900, *9 (D. Ariz. April 11, 2017) | (“Claims that merely challenge a petitioner’s classification by the BOP without potentially | shortening the petitioner’s sentence are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition.”); Parada v. | Martinez, No. CV 19-4405 JAK (MRW), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163574, *4-5 (C.D. Cal. Sept.

6 | 24, 2019) (“[T]he Court cannot adjudicate Petitioner's contention that the BOP has misclassified | him for prison housing or program purposes. A challenge to the conditions of his confinement || rather than the legality of his confinement [ ] is not cognizable on habeas corpus review.”)

9 | Gnternal quotation marks omitted). The matter might be different if this classification were | potentially to impact the length of petitioner’s sentence, but the petition does not, as best as I can | tell, indicate that this is the case.

12 Petitioner may, if he chooses, file an amended petition that addresses this deficiency. If || he does not, I will recommend that this action be dismissed.

14 It is ORDERED that: 15 1. Petitioner may file an amended § 2241 petition within thirty days of this order’s | entry. If he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons || stated in this order.

18 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal § 2241 habeas form with | this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 ( q Sty - Dated: _ January 13, 2023 ow—— 23 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE