United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. The only remaining claim is that the classification
score assigned to petitioner under Federal Bureau of Prisons
Program Statement 5100.8 is too low. A classification score,
in part, determines where federal prisoners such as
petitioner will be housed. A higher score would allow
petitioner to be housed at a lower security level prison.
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss arguing, among other
things, that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear
petitioner's claim. Petitioner has filed an opposition to
the motion to dismiss.
to traditional interpretation, the writ of habeas corpus is
limited to attacks upon the legality or duration of
confinement." Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890,
891 (9th Cir. 1979) citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 484-86 (1973). In this instance, petitioner fails
to allege anything suggesting that a favorable decision on
his habeas petition will result in, at minimum, a shorter
sentence. Therefore, petitioner's claim is not properly
brought in a habeas action.
court noted in an order dated September 2, 2015,
Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir.
2000) appears to lend support to the proposition that a
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 need not necessarily be directed at the fact or duration
"Generally, motions to contest the legality of a
sentence must be filed under [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 in the
sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the manner,
location, or conditions of a sentence's execution must be
brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court.
See Doganiere v. United States, 914 F.2d 165, 169-70
(9th Cir. 1990); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d
672, 677 (9th Cir. 1980).
Hernandez, the petitioner sought resentencing.
Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864. Therefore, any statement
made by the court in that case regarding habeas jurisdiction
for claims which do not concern the fact or duration of
confinement is dicta. Furthermore, Doganiere and
Brown both concern challenges to parole proceedings
and there is no language in either suggesting habeas
jurisdiction should lie for claims where the fact or duration
of confinement is not challenged. Finally, petitioner fails
to point to a federal case where a prisoner was permitted to
challenge his Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement
5100.8 classification score in order to obtain a transfer to
a lower security prison through a petition for writ of habeas
court notes that in his opposition to respondent's motion
to dismiss, petitioner seemingly withdraws any request that
he be transferred to a lower security prison. Instead,
petitioner asks that "his points be corrected in
accordance with the law . . ." ECF No. 24 at 7. Whether
it is a transfer that petitioner ultimately seeks, or just a
modification of his classification score, petitioner fails to
establish any injury which is actionable in a habeas
as respondent points out, the Supreme Court has specifically
found that Congress has given federal prison officials full
discretion with respect to classification of prisoners and
prisoners have no statutory or Constitutional entitlement to
invoke the protections of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment with respect to classification
decisions. Moody v. Dagget, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9
(1976). Therefore, even if the court had jurisdiction to
consider petitioner's claim regarding his classification
score, petitioner has no basis for relief.
the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23) be
2. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus
brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed; and
3. This case be closed.
findings and recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, any party may file written objections with
the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations." In his
objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of
appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of
the judgment in this case. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253. Any response to the objections shall be served and
filed within fourteen days after service of the objections.