United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
CHUONG VAN DUONG, Reg. No. 42786-177 Petitioner,
WALTER J. WOOD, SR., et al., Respondents.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
M. BORDEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
case is before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2241
application for habeas corpus relief filed by Chuong Van
Duong, a federal inmate currently incarcerated at the
Montgomery Federal Prison Camp in Montgomery, Alabama. In
this petition, Duong addresses potential actions which may be
taken against him by prison officials if he voluntarily
withdraws from the adult literacy program conducted by the
Bureau of Prisons.
response filed on August 13, 2017, Duong concedes the claims
on which he seeks to proceed in this action “regard
the ‘conditions of confinement,' namely, the
requirement that Petitioner continue to participate in [the]
adult literacy program or otherwise suffer redress”
relating to his employment status. Doc. 20 at 12. Duong
maintains he “seeks only to establish his right to
withdraw [from the program], the propriety of his full-time
employment notwithstanding his withdrawal . . . and his
request for a pay limitation waiver” if he does
withdraw from the program. Doc. 20 at 13.
court has reviewed the habeas petition, the responses to the
petition filed by the respondents, and Duong's response
to the arguments of the respondents. Upon this review and in
accordance with applicable federal law, the court concludes
that the petition is due to be denied.
complains that under governing administrative regulations
prison officials may lessen his pay grade and change his
employment level if he chooses to withdraw from the adult
literacy program. Duong acknowledges that these claims solely
address the conditions of his confinement. Doc. 20 at 12. For
this reason, Duong's claims are not cognizable in the
instant 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition.
central purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to provide a
remedy to prisoners who are challenging the fact or duration
of their physical confinement and are seeking immediate
release or an earlier release. Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 484-87 (1973); McCarthan v. Dir. of
Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1092-93
(11th Cir. 2017) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted), cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 502 (Dec. 4, 2017)
(holding that a federal inmate “may file a petition for
a [§ 2241] writ of habeas corpus to challenge the
execution of his sentence, such as the deprivation of
[previously earned] good-time credits or [adverse] parole
determinations” or, in extraordinary and limited
circumstances, to challenge his sentence “when the
sentencing court is unavailable [such as when the sentencing
court no longer exists]” or where there are multiple
sentencing courts which would prevent a prisoner from filing
a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate); Wilkinson v.
Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005) (internal quotations and
citation omitted) (holding that where success in the action
would not “necessarily spell [immediate or] speedier
release” for the prisoner the remedy is not within
“the core of habeas corpus”). Duong concedes that
his claims relate to conditions of confinement and asserts
that the exclusive remedy for these claims lies in a
Bivens-type action. Doc. 20 at 12 n.2.
inmate's challenge to the circumstances of his
confinement . . . may [under appropriate circumstances] be
brought [in a Bivens civil rights action].”
Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006)
(internal quotations and citations omitted); Nelson v.
Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004)
(“[C]onstitutional claims that merely challenge the
conditions of a prisoner's confinement, whether the
inmate seeks monetary or injunctive relief, fall outside
[the] core [of habeas corpus] and may be brought pursuant to
§ 1983 [or, for a federal prisoner, a Bivens
civil rights action].”). Here, Duong seeks injunctive
relief which would compel prison officials to allow him to
remain in full-time employment status with no change in his
pay grade if he withdraws from the adult literacy program.
Doc. 20 at 13. Consistent with settled law, these claims are
not properly before the court in a petition for writ of
habeas corpus. Duong's habeas petition is due to be
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition for federal habeas corpus relief
filed herein be DENIED and this case be DISMISSED.
ORDERED that on or before March 5, 2019,
Petitioner may file an objection to the recommendation.
Petitioner must specifically identify the factual findings
and legal conclusions in the recommendation to which
objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general
objections will not be considered.
to file a written objection to the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
shall bar a de novo determination by the District
Court of legal and factual issues covered in the
recommendation and waives the right of a party to challenge
on appeal the district court's order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or
adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain
error or manifest injustice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; Resolution ...