ALD-006 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 23-2448 ___________

ROBERT ANDRE RUFF, Appellant

v.

WARDEN SCHUYLKILL FCI ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (M.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01032) District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo ____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 October 12, 2023

Before: HARDIMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: October 19, 2023)

_________

OPINION* _________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM

Robert Andre Ruff appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his habeas

petition for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.

Ruff, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. Ruff sought to challenge a disciplinary proceeding charging him with

various Bureau of Prisons code violations in connection with a September 12, 2021, fire

in his cell. Ruff was advised of his rights before a Disciplinary Hearing Officer

(“DHO”), and subsequently admitted to the charges. The DHO issued a written report,

sanctioning Ruff to 40 days of disciplinary segregation, the loss of telephone, visitation,

and email privileges for varying amounts of time, and monetary restitution. See D.Ct.

ECF No. 13-1 at 9-10, 35-38. Ruff was not sanctioned with any loss of good conduct

time.

The DHO report also indicated that Ruff was provided with a copy of the incident

report in advance of the hearing. Ruff disputes this assertion. In his § 2241 petition, Ruff

alleged that he was denied due process because he did not receive a copy of the incident

report as claimed. As relief, Ruff requested that the incident report be removed from his

file. See D.Ct. ECF No. 1 at 6-7.

The District Court dismissed the petition without prejudice for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. It concluded that, because Ruff was not sanctioned with the loss of

2 good conduct time, his petition “does not affect the duration of his sentence and, thus, is

not cognizable in a Section 2241 habeas corpus petition.” D.Ct. ECF No. 15 at 7.

Ruff filed a notice of appeal. The parties were notified that this appeal would be

considered for possible dismissal pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) or possible

summary action pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. Ruff responded to

that notification, requesting “a review of the camera to show that [he] was never

serve[d]” with the incident report, which he asserts was a violation of his rights. 3d Cir.

ECF No. 8 at 1.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to

and exercise plenary review

over the District Court’s legal conclusions. Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner,

(3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). We will summarily affirm the District Court’s order

dismissing Ruff’s habeas petition because no substantial question is presented by this

appeal. See Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

Section 2241 is the appropriate vehicle for constitutional claims when a prison

disciplinary proceeding results in the loss of good conduct time because the action could

affect the duration of the prisoner’s sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973); Queen v. Miner,

, 254 n.2 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

However, as explained by the District Court and as reflected in the record, the DHO did

not impose any loss of good conduct time for the various code violations. Instead, the

disciplinary proceedings resulted in temporary disciplinary segregation, temporary loss of

3 certain privileges, and restitution for damages. Ruff did not allege that these sanctions

are at odds with the terms of his sentence. As Ruff’s petition does not concern how his

judgment of sentence is being effectuated, his claim relating to this disciplinary

proceeding is not cognizable in a § 2241 habeas petition. See Cardona v. Bledsoe,

(3d Cir. 2012) (explaining that the district court lacked § 2241

habeas jurisdiction absent allegations that the challenged Bureau of Prisons conduct was

“somehow inconsistent with a command or recommendation in the sentencing

judgment”).

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

4