United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL Chief U.S. District Judge.
Michael Curtis Reynolds, an inmate who is currently
incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary located in
Greenville, Illinois (“USP Greenville”), brings
this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
to challenge the confiscation of personal property.
matter is now before the Court for review of the Petition
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in United States District Courts, which provides
that upon preliminary consideration by the district judge,
“[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the
petitioner.” Rule 1(b) gives this Court the authority
to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases.
Petition, Reynolds claims that on two separate occasions he
was deprived of his property without confiscation forms, and
he has received no compensation in violation of his due
process rights. (Doc. 1, p. 1). He states that because he
cannot seek monetary refunds under Section 2241, he requests
the Court to order Respondent Werlich to replace the lost
petition seeking habeas corpus relief is appropriate under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 when a prisoner is challenging the fact or
duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973); Waletzki v. Keohane, 13
F.3d 1079, 1080 (7th Cir. 1994). Section 2241 cannot be used
to challenge the conditions of confinement at USP Greenville,
however, as Reynolds does here. See Glaus v.
Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 386 (2005).
seeking redress for a violation of constitutional rights by a
person acting under the color of federal authority may be
brought against federal officials pursuant to Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Court cannot convert his matter,
however, to a Bivens action for Reynolds because
doing so may lead to unfavorable consequences under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, such as a higher filing fee and
the risk of receiving a “strike” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Bunn v. Conley, 309 F.3d 1002,
1007 (7th Cir. 2002). A review of Reynold's litigation
history reveals that he has accrued at least seven
“strikes” pursuant to Section 1915(g) and that
this is not the first time he has attempted to
“shoehorn civil rights claims into a habeas
proceeding[.]” Reynolds v. Werlich, No.
18-cv-1186-DRH, 2018 WL 3536753 *2 (S.D. Ill. July 20, 2018)
(citing case history); see also Reynolds v. United
States, No. 14-cv-1733 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2007) (Doc. 7,
dismissing case pursuant to Section 1915(g) and citing case
history). Reynolds titles the petition “Motion Under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 for Administrative Relief” and
states that he knows that monetary refunds are not available
under Section 2241. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Accordingly, he clearly
intended to file this petition pursuant to Section 2241, and
the Court will not recharacterize the habeas petition as a
complaint brought pursuant to Bivens.
Reynolds is not challenging the validity of his conviction or
sentence or the fact or duration of confinement, the Petition
will be dismissed. The Court takes no position regarding the
ultimate merits of his claims, however, should Reynolds
pursue a separate civil rights action, he is
WARNED that failure to disclose his
“strikes” received under Section 1915(g) when
seeking to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil
rights action may result in sanctions. See Reynolds v.
United States, No. 19-cv-01390 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2020)
(Doc. 3, order denying IFP Motion and ordering Reynolds to
show cause why he should not be sanctioned for fraudulent
has also filed a motion seeking immediate transfer to a
facility that is 500 miles drivable from Connecticut in
accordance with the First Step Act. (Doc. 6). This motion
will be denied, as there are no claims in the Petition
regarding Reynold's prison placement or the First Step
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is
DISMISSED with prejudice.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Emergency Motion for
Failure to Abide Under the First Step Act (Doc. 6) is
Reynolds wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may file a
notice of appeal with this Court within sixty (60) days of
the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues
Reynolds plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(1)(C). If he does choose to appeal and is allowed to
proceed IFP, Reynolds will be required to pay a portion of
the $ 505.00 appellate filing fee in order to pursue his
appeal (the amount to be determined based on his prison trust
fund account records for the past six months) irrespective of
the outcome of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(e);
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger,547 F.3d 724, 725-26 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v.
Lesza,181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien
v. Jockisch,133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). A timely
motion filed ...