United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
W. TRUMBLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
January 4, 2019, the pro se Petitioner, an
inmate at FCI Hazelton, in Bruceton Mills, West
Virginia, filed the above-styled action petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. On January 4, 2019, the
Clerk issued a Notice of Deficient Pleading which advised
Petitioner of the requirement to file an application to
proceed in forma pauperis, along with necessary
documentation, or to pay a filing fee of $5.00. ECF No. 2.
Although Petitioner has yet to pay the filing fee or file an
application to proceed in forma pauperis, this Court is
reviewing the matter based on Petitioner's request for an
injunction to order the Respondent to stop preventing inmates
from accessing the courts, and to stop limiting access to
incoming and outgoing mail. ECF No. 1 at 8.
matter is pending before the undersigned pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 636 and 1915A.
filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
challenging his jail or prison conditions. ECF No. 1 at 1. He
raises a single ground for relief, wherein he alleges that
the institution of FCI Hazelton is “actively preventing
access to the courts by limiting access to materials and the
improper seizure of legal materials, ” and drafted
filings. Id. at 5. As relief, Petitioner seeks an
emergency injunction “preventing such
interference.” Id. Petitioner claims that FCI
Hazelton is “confiscating/discarding attempts to submit
[the matter] to the administrative remedy procedure.”
Id. at 7.
requests the following relief:
I seek an immediate order commanding BCI Hazelton to
immediately cease its active efforts to prevent inmates'
access to the courts, to cease [its] limitation of access to
the law materials, to cease [its] harassment of those
preparing legal materials, and to cease it's prevention
of using the court and administrative remedy processes
designed [for] use by inmates. Injunctive order commanding
FCI Hazelton to stop denying inmates' First Amendment
Right of Access to the mail and the ongoing policy of
arbitrarily and capriciously denying inmate's incoming
Id. at 8.
Review of Petitions for Relief
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this
Court's local rules, this Court is authorized to review
such petitions for relief and submit findings and
recommendations to the District Court. This Court is charged
with screening Petitioner's case to determine if
“it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the U.S. District Courts (2014); see also
Rule 1(b) Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S.
District Courts (2014) (“The district court may apply
any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition”
not filed pursuant to § 2254).
Pro Se Litigants.
must read pro se allegations in a liberal fashion
and hold those pro se pleadings “to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court is
required to perform a judicial review of certain suits
brought by prisoners and must dismiss a case at any time if
the Court determines that the complaint is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous if it is