Hayes v. FCI Fort Dix

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
John Hayes
v. 	Case No. 19-cv-1003-PB
FCI Fort Dix
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is pro se petitioner John Hayes’s letter
(Doc. No. 1) requesting that the court order the Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) to immediately move him to a halfway house so
that he may serve his federal sentence there before being moved
to home confinement. 	The court construes the letter as a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The petition is before this court for screening under Rule
4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (“§ 2254 Rules”). 	Under
those rules, if “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.” 	§
2254 Rule 4; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (writ may be issued,
“unless it appears from the application that the . . . person
detained is not entitled to it”). 	Federal courts “are
authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears
legally insufficient on its face.” 	McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S.
849, 856 (1994). 	In conducting its preliminary review, the
Case 1:19-cv-01003-PB Document 3 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 5

2
court construes pro se filings liberally. 	See Dutil v. Murphy,
550 F.3d 154, 158 (1st Cir. 2008).
Background
Hayes pled guilty in this court, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to one count of conspiracy to introduce misbranded
drugs into interstate commerce. 	See J., United States v. Hayes,
No. 1:16-cr-00098-PB-1 (N.H.D.) (E.C.F. No. 114). 	The court
sentenced Hayes to thirty months of imprisonment and two years
of supervised released. 	See id. 	Hayes, who filed this action
while he was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey (“FCI-Fort Dix”), is
currently housed at the Manhattan Correctional Center in New
York (“MCC New York”). 	He is scheduled to be released in
October 2020.1
Allegations and Relief Sought
Hayes contends that the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No.
115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, and Second Chance Act of 2007, 18
U.S.C. § 3624(b), provide for the placement of federal inmates
in pre-release community custody, such as a halfway house, for
twelve months followed by placement in home confinement for the
last 10% or six months of the inmate’s sentence. 	He alleges
1See BOP Inmate Locator at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/
(last viewed May 14, 2020).
Case 1:19-cv-01003-PB Document 3 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 5

3
that officials at FCI-Fort Dix informed him that the BOP would
not place him in pre-release community custody and that he
probably would spend less than a month in home confinement.
Hayes requests that this court enter an Order directing the BOP
and the staff at FCI-Fort Dix to move him to a halfway house to
finish his sentence before he is placed on home confinement.
Discussion
I. 	18 U.S.C.A. § 3624(c)
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3624(c)(1), the director of the
BOP is required to ensure, “to the extent practicable,” that a
federal prisoner spends a portion of the final months of his
prison term (not to exceed twelve months) in pre-release
community custody, id., which can include a halfway house,
residential re-entry center, or other community correctional
facility, see 28 C.F.R. § 570.20. 	The Director of the BOP also
may place a prisoner in home confinement for 10% of the
prisoner’s term of imprisonment or six months, whichever is
shorter. 	See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3624(c)(2).
II. 	Jurisdiction
Favorably construing the petition, the court finds that
Hayes seeks an order from this court requiring the BOP2 to
2Because Hayes has been transferred to another federal
facility, any injunctive relief he seeks against FCI-Fort Dix
Case 1:19-cv-01003-PB Document 3 Filed 05/19/20 Page 3 of 5

4
transfer him to a community-based form of custody, which is a
proper basis for a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	See
González-Fuentes v. Molina, 607 F.3d 864, 873 (1st Cir. 2010)
(recognizing that a request for a “quantum change in the level
of custody” should be brought in habeas). 	But a § 2241 petition
challenging the BOP’s execution of an inmate’s federal sentence
may be brought only in the district court with personal
jurisdiction over the prisoner’s custodian. 	See United States
v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34, 50 n.10 (1st Cir. 1999) (citing United
States v. DiRusso, 535 F.2d 673, 675 (1st Cir. 1976) (“The
proper vehicle for attacking the execution of sentence . . . is
28 U.S.C. § 2241.”)); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S.
426, 447 (2004) (“Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to
challenge his present physical custody within the United States,
he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in
the district of confinement.”).
Hayes is housed outside this court’s jurisdiction, and this
court does not have personal jurisdiction over Hayes’s
custodian, the warden of MCC New York. 	Moreover, when he filed
this habeas action, Hayes was housed outside this court’s
jurisdiction. 	Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to grant
Hayes’s requested relief. 	See Padilla, 542 U.S. at 447.
staff is moot. 	See Ford v. Bender, 768 F.3d 15, 29 (1st Cir.
2014) (In the absence of claims for damages, “[a] prisoner’s
challenge to prison conditions or policies is generally rendered
moot by his transfer or release.”).
Case 1:19-cv-01003-PB Document 3 Filed 05/19/20 Page 4 of 5

5
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss Hayes’s § 2241 petition without prejudice to his ability
to refile it in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. 	Any objections to this Report
and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt
of this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day
period may be extended upon motion. 	Failure to file specific
written objections to the Report and Recommendation within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s
order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168
(1st Cir. 2016).
________________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
May 19, 2020
cc: 	John Hayes, pro se
Case 1:19-cv-01003-PB Document 3 Filed 05/19/20 Page 5 of 5