UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:22-cv-00200-MR

SAVANAH PAULINE JUSTICE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) FNU LOVITT, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Petitioner’s Pro Se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to

. [Doc. 1]. I. BACKGROUND Pro se Petitioner Savanah Pauline Justice (“Petitioner”) is a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at Hazelton US Penitentiary (“Hazelton”) in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia. On August 6, 2020, she was sentenced by this Court to a term of imprisonment of 100 months on drug charges. [Criminal Case No. 1:19-cr-00104-MR-WCM (“CR”), Doc. 79: Judgment]. On August 30, 2022,1 she filed the instant pro se petition for writ of habeas

1 Although it was not received by the Court until September 12, 2022, Petitioner dated the petition August 26, 2022, a Friday, and it was postmarked August 30, 2022, the following corpus under

against Petitioner FNU Lovitt, identified as the Warden, presumably of Hazelton.2 [Doc. 1]. As grounds for the instant

petition, Petitioner alleges that she suffered “[i]nhumane treatment while in Federal holding due to COVID lockdown measures.” She claims, “there was no proper sanitations or CDC protocols being followed by the facility” and

that she “was locked in 24/7” while detained at the “McDowell County Enforcement Center” for 13 months, with only periodic showers and “prohibited and limited” communications. [Id. at 6]. For relief, Petitioner seeks a “sentence modification of 13 months” for the hardship she has

experienced. She states she is a model inmate and that “the COVID situation was not [her] fault, but [she] had to suffer [because] of it.” [Id. at 7]. Petitioner acknowledges that she recently sought “time (hardship)

credit for the extreme lockdown circumstances during COVID” in the Northern District of West Virginia. [Id. at 2 (citing Civil Case No. 3:22-CV-80 (N.D.W. Va.))]. In that action, which Petitioner brought pursuant to

, the Court found that Petitioner was “clearly … seeking enhanced

credit for time served” under Section 12003 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,

Tuesday. [Doc. 1 at 8, Doc. 1-1]. See Houston v. Lack,

(1988) (establishing prison mailbox rule).

2 After the Clerk directed Petitioner to either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee, Petitioner paid the filing fee. [Doc. 2; see 9/27/2022 Docket Entry]. and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”),

Stat. 281 (2020), and that the Court did not have the power to grant relief

thereunder. [Case No. 3:22-CV-80, Doc. 7 at 2]. The Court also held, alternatively, to the extent Petitioner sought compassionate release under

(c)(1)(A), Petitioner’s motion must be brought in the

sentencing court in Petitioner’s criminal case. [Id.,

]. Finally, the Court noted that, to the extent Petitioner is seeking relief for her conditions of confinement, such claims are not cognizable under

. [Id.,

].

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings provides that courts are to promptly examine habeas petitions to determine whether the

petitioner is entitled to any relief on the claims set forth therein. After examining the record in this matter, the Court finds that the habeas petition can be resolved without an evidentiary hearing based on the record and governing case law. See Raines v. United States,

(4th

Cir. 1970). III. DISCUSSION The “essence of habeas corpus” is “an attack by a person in custody

upon the legality of that custody, and … the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez,

,

(1973). In other words, the function of a habeas petition

is to challenge “the very fact or duration of [the petitioner’s] physical imprisonment, and the relief that [the petitioner] seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that

imprisonment….”

,

. Thus, a § 2241 petition is appropriate where the prisoner challenges the fact or length of his confinement, but generally not the conditions of that confinement. Feather- Gorbey v. Warden, FCI Beckley, No. 5:21-00367,

, at *2

(S.D.W. Va. Oct. 21, 2021) (citing Preiser,

; Alaj v. Smith, 108 Fed. App’x 743, 744 (4th Cir. 2004)). Moreover, “it is well established that defendants convicted in federal court are obliged to seek habeas relief

from their convictions and sentences through § 2255,” not through a petition filed pursuant to § 2241. Rice v. Rivera,

(4th Cir. 2010) (citing In re Vial,

(4th Cir. 1997)). The Eight Amendment, on the other hand, prohibits the infliction of

cruel and unusual punishment and “applies to claims by prisoners against corrections officials challenging conditions of confinement.” Porter v. Clarke,

(4th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). Claims against federal

actors for constitutional violations are brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

(1971). A Bivens action is the federal counterpart of an action under

.

The fact that a petitioner “seek[s] release from custody cannot transform [her] claim[ ] into a cognizable habeas corpus action.” Hallinan v. Scarantino,

, 602 (E.D.N.C. June 11, 2020). “It is the

nature of the substantive legal claim itself and the pertinent factual allegations – in addition to the relief sought – that determines whether the claim challenges ‘the validity of confinement’ and thus sounds in habeas corpus.”

(citing Hill v. McDonough,

,

(2006)). Here, Petitioner seeks a sentence reduction of 13 months for having been subjected to extreme lockdown conditions, including only periodic

showers and limited outside communication, while in federal custody due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She also complains that proper sanitation and CDC protocols were not followed at the correctional facility. Thus, although Petitioner seeks a reduction in her sentence, Petitioner’s claim implicates the

conditions – not the legality – of her confinement. As such, Petitioner’s challenge to her conditions of confinement, that is, COVID-related lockdown conditions, lies under Bivens, if at all, not under

§ 2241. See Sappleton v. Hogsten, No. 1:11-00552,

, at *2 (S.D.W. Va. June 6, 2014) (construing petition filed under § 2241 as a Bivens action where federal prisoner argues that his custody classification is

improperly calculated based on inaccurate information contained in this presentence report). If Petitioner wishes to pursue a Bivens action, however, she must comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). “The PLRA

applies to all prisoner civil actions challenging conditions of confinement, and imposes strict requirements regarding filing fees, administrative exhaustion, and carefully crafted restrictions on injunctive relief.” Hallinan, 466 F.Supp.3d at 603. The Court, therefore, declines to construe Petitioner’s

petition as a Bivens Complaint. To the extent Petitioner seeks relief under the CARES Act, as previously noted by the Northern District of West Virginia, this Court lacks

authority to grant relief thereunder. United States v. Rucker, 853 Fed. App’x 893 (4th 2021); United States v. Harless, 849 Fed. App’x 419 (4th Cir. 2021). Finally, to the extent Petitioner seeks relief under

(c)(1)(A), Petitioner must file such motion in her underlying criminal proceeding.

Because § 2241 is not the proper mechanism here, the Court will dismiss Petitioner’s petition without prejudice to Petitioner properly advancing her claim according to the guidance above, if at all. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner's § 2241 petition is denied and dismissed without prejudice in accordance with the terms of this Order. ORDER IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under § 2241 [Doc. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: October 30, 2022

Martifi Reidinger ey Chief United States District Judge “AES