Clarence S. Jupiter v. Warden, Usp Lewisburg

DLD-252 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 07-1325
________________
CLARENCE S. JUPITER,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN, USP LEWISBURG
________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 06-cv-01631)
District Judge: Honorable Edwin M. Kosik
________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 31, 2007
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 19, 2007)
________________
OPINION
________________
PER CURIAM
In August 2006, Jupiter, a federal prisoner, filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania

-- 1 of 4 --

1 Jupiter does not identify the nature of the action.
2 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) .
2
(“Lewisburg prison”) denied him access to the courts when it lost his legal materials
pertaining to a pending court action.1 In August 2005, the Bureau of Prisons transferred
Jupiter from the federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, to the segregation housing unit at
the Lewisburg prison. Within a few weeks of the transfer, Jupiter received a notice from
a court, directing him to file a response by a date certain. On September 5, 2005, after
reviewing the legal material that the Lewisburg prison gave him, Jupiter noticed that
some of his legal materials, including affidavits, transcripts, statements, petitions, and
other pleadings, were missing. He complained, requesting that the prison return the legal
materials to him and advise the court about the loss. According to Jupiter, he needed the
legal materials, some of which were irreplaceable, in order to comply with the court
notice. He claims that the Lewisburg prison deprived him of access to the courts because
it intentionally or negligently failed to provide his legal materials to him and thereby
prevented him from proceeding with the case. He seeks release from incarceration.
The Warden of the Lewisburg prison contended that Jupiter’s claims were not
cognizable under § 2241 because he did not challenge the fact or duration of his
confinement. The Magistrate Judge agreed, recommending that the petition be dismissed.
The District Court overruled Jupiter’s objections, adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and dismissed the petition without prejudice to his filing a Bivens action.2 Jupiter filed a
motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. Jupiter timely appealed.

-- 2 of 4 --

3 We do not review the District Court’s order denying reconsideration as Jupiter
did not file an amended notice of appeal.
3
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291. We exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s legal conclusions as no evidentiary hearing was conducted by
the District Court. See Ruggiano v. Reish, 307 F.3d 121, 126 (3d Cir. 2002).3
The District Court properly held that Jupiter’s access to the courts claim does not
lie at the core of habeas and, thus, is not cognizable under § 2241. In Leamer v. Fauver,
288 F.3d 532 (3d Cir. 2002), we held that Leamer’s challenge to the conditions of his
confinement was properly brought in a civil rights action rather than a habeas petition.
“When examining whether Preiser and its progeny require a claim to be brought under
habeas, unless the claim would fall within the ‘core of habeas’ and require sooner release
if resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, a prison confinement action such as this is properly
brought under § 1983. Leamer’s claim not only does not fall within the core of habeas;
it would not be properly brought under habeas at all.” Leamer, 288 F.3d at 544.
Jupiter claims that he should be released because the Lewisburg prison deprived
him of meaningful access to the courts, which caused his incarceration to be unlawful.
We disagree. The access to the courts claim has no bearing on the lawfulness of his
incarceration. Nor would Jupiter’s ultimate success on the merits of the claim result in a
speedier release from prison. We agree with the District Court that Jupiter cannot bring
the claim in a habeas petition.
Because no substantial question is presented by this appeal, the District Court’s

-- 3 of 4 --

judgment will be summarily affirmed. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
4

-- 4 of 4 --