United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
JOENELL L. RICE, Petitioner,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
P. MAZZONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
May 28, 2019, the pro se petitioner, Joenell Rice
(“Rice”) filed an Application for Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, together with a Motion for
Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and a Prisoner
Trust Account Report with ledger sheets. This matter is
assigned to the Honorable John Preston Bailey, United States
District Judge, and is referred to the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge for submission of a proposed
disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
petition, Rice alleges that he has been in the
“hole” since July of 2017, a period of 23 months.
In addition, Rice appears to allege that he should not be
housed at a United States Penitentiary, but instead should be
in a Federal Medical Center for proper treatment of his
mental health disorder. For relief, he asks this Court to
order his release from the hole and direct that he be sent to
FMC Boston or Butner.
section 2241 petition is used to attack the way the sentence
is executed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. More
specifically, a section 2241 petition is appropriate where a
prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his confinement
but not the conditions of that confinement. See Preiser
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499-500 (1973).
Rice complains about the conditions of his confinement.
Specifically, his claim relates to his confinement in the SHU
and presumably the attendant discomforts associated with
confinement in something other than a regular housing unit.
In addition, liberally construed, Rice alleges that BOP staff
are being deliberately indifferent to his mental health.
These claims are not an attack on, nor are they related in
any way to, the execution of his sentence. Thus, Rice claims
regarding the conditions of his confinement should have been
raised pursuant to a civil rights complaint. Preiser
at 499-500 (a civil rights action is the proper remedy for a
prisoner challenging the conditions of his prison life).
See also Lee v. Winston, 717 F.2d 888 (4th Cir.
1983). Because a petition for writ of habeas corpus under
§ 2241 is not the proper avenue in which to seek the
requested relief, the petition should be denied and dismissed
from the Court's active docket.
consideration of the foregoing, it is the undersigned's
recommendation that Castro Davis' § 2241 petition
[ECF No.1] be DENIED and DISMISSED without
prejudice to his right to file his claims in a civil rights
action. In addition, the undersigned recommends that his
Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] BE GRANTED, but the fee be waived.
shall have fourteen days from the date of service of this
Report and Recommendation within which to file with the Clerk
of this Court, specific written objections,
identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to
which objection is made, and the basis of such
objection. A copy of such objections should also be
submitted to the United States District Judge. Objections
shall not exceed ten (10) typewritten pages or twenty (20)
handwritten pages, including exhibits, unless accompanied by
a motion for leave to exceed the page limitations, consistent
with LR PL P 12.
to file written objections as set forth above shall
constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court
and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of
Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363
(4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985);
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.
Report and Recommendation completes the referral from the
district court. The Clerk is directed to terminate the