United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
COGBURN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court on review of
Plaintiff's pro se petition seeking habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Doc. No. 1).
se Petitioner James Meyer is a federal inmate at Butner
Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina. He alleges
that the Bureau of Prisons is wrongfully executing his
fifteen-month sentence by purposefully depriving him of
prescribed medical care including chemotherapy for diagnosed
stage-IV cancer of the spine and a rare type of blood cancer.
He seeks “Compassionate Releas[e]” and
“house arrest/home confinement” for the remainder
of his sentence to preserve his quality of life and prevent
permanent irreparable damage, injuries, or death. (Doc. No.
1-1 at 14-16).
following reasons, the Court construes this action as a civil
suit pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and
transfers it to the Eastern District of North Carolina where
venue is more appropriate.
pled guilty to a single count of obstruction of justice in
criminal case number 3:16-cr-62-MOC. On August 23, 2016, the
Court sentenced him to 15 months' imprisonment followed
by two years of supervised release. (Crim. Case No.
3:16-cr-62-MOC-DSC-1, Doc. No. 30). The judgment, which was
docketed on October 11, 2016, required Petitioner to
self-surrender in accordance with the United States
Marshal's instructions. (Id.).
November 10, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to stay his
surrender which was scheduled for November 22, 2016, alleging
that he was diagnosed shortly after sentencing with bone
cancer that required treatment in his home state of
California. (Id., Doc. No. 33). On November 18,
2016, the Court held a hearing and granted a 60-day stay
during which time Petitioner was required to file updated
medical reports through counsel. (Id., Doc. No. 38).
Petitioner filed a second motion to stay on January 12, 2017,
which the Court heard on January 18, 2017, and granted a
second sixty-day stay during which Petitioner filed
additional medical information. (Id., Doc. No. 45,
47, 49). The Government opposed further stay because the
Bureau of Prisons indicated its ability to treat
Petitioner's condition and, if it later determined it was
unable to treat him, it could act accordingly. (Id.,
Doc. No. 50). The Court denied any further stay on March 28,
2017, because the Court had been assured that the Bureau of
Prisons can accommodate Petitioner's medical needs at
FMC-Butner. (Id., Doc. No. 51).
18, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant pro se
petition seeking habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 along with a memorandum seeking relief under “Rule
60(b), 60(b)(3), 60(b)(6), 60(d)(1) & (3), FRAUD ON THE
COURT, and THE ALL WRITS ACT AUXILLIARY JURISDICTIONAL AID OF
28 U.S.C.S. § 1651(a) and (b)” and United States
Sentencing Guidelines §§ 5H1.1 and 5H1.4. (Doc.
Nos. 1, 1-1). He names as Respondents the United States
Bureau of Prisons, the FMC Butner Medical Director, and FMC
Butner Complex Warden J.C. Holland. He claims that the
Court's March 28, 2017 “oral sentence” relied
on untrue “binding obligatory assurance” from the
Government that the Bureau of Prisons can adequately treat
Petitioner's medical conditions. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 1-2).
He alleges that he is not receiving adequate medical
treatment for his diagnosed cancers at FMC Butner. In a
supplemental memorandum filed on August 3, 2017, he alleges
that he had been transferred to Butner's non-medical low
security compound, rather than the medical unit, indicating
that Butner has no intention of treating him. (Doc. No. 2).
In a second supplement filed on August 10, 2017, he provides
additional exhibits supporting his petition. (Doc. No. 3). He
seeks “Compassionate Releas[e]/Home Confinement”
for the remainder of his sentence to preserve his quality of
life and prevent permanent irreparable damage, injuries, or
death. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 14-16).
claims have been liberally construed, Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), so as to give effect to
their substance rather than their form. See generally
Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003)
(“Federal courts sometimes will ignore the legal label
that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and
recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a
different legal category.”) Each of the grounds of
relief that Petitioner appears to raise will be addressed in
has entitled the instant action as one seeking habeas corpus
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which he purports
to attack the execution of the “oral sentence”
that the Court imposed on March 28, 2017. (Doc. No. 1-1 at
inmate may bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under
§ 2241 where he alleges he is “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(3). Examples
of challenges to the execution of a federal sentence are the
administration of parole or sentence computation by prison
officials. See, e.g., United States v.
Little, 392 F.3d 671, 679 (4th Cir. 2004). By
contrast, a civil rights action is the proper method to
challenge “the conditions of [a prisoner's] prison
life, but not  the fact or length of his custody.”
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973);
see Braddy v. Wilson, 580 Fed.Appx. 172
(4th Cir. 2014). Further, “a [Section] 2241
habeas petition can only be filed in the district in which a
prisoner is confined.” United States v. Poole,
531 F.3d 263, 264 (4th Cir. 2008).
claim is premised on a faulty factual foundation insofar as
the March 28, 2017, Order is not a “sentence.”
The March 28 Order denied Petitioner's continued motion
to stay his surrender to the Bureau of Prisons, whereas his
sentence was orally imposed on August 23, 2016, and was
docketed on October 11, 2016. Petitioner fails to allege
anything about the sentence itself that is being incorrectly
implemented by the Bureau of Prisons. Moreover, even if
Petitioner had raised a cognizable § 2241 claim, this
Court is not the correct venue in which to raise it.
Petitioner is incarcerated at FMC Butner which is located in
Granville County in the Eastern ...