Frank Cecil Cannon v. MARY SABOL, Warden of York County Prison On Appeal from the United States District…

ALD-210 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 10-1592
FRANK CECIL CANNON,
Appellant
v.
MARY SABOL, Warden of York County Prison
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-1945)
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 26, 2010
Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed June 7, 2010 )
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Frank Cannon appeals the District Court’s order denying his petition for habeas
corpus. For the reasons below, we will affirm.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The procedural history of this case and the details of Cannon’s claims are well
known to the parties and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, Cannon filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued that when he was
admitted into the county prison, an intake counselor wrote down that Cannon was a pagan
and not a Hebrew Israelite. He contended that he was not allowed to participate in
Hebrew activities, which denied his rights under the First Amendment. He requested that
the District Court grant the writ and enjoin respondents from violating his rights. The
District Court denied the petition without prejudice to Cannon presenting his claims in a
properly filed civil rights complaint. Cannon filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We agree with the District Court that Cannon’s claims concerning his participation
in religious activities at the prison do not lie at the “core of habeas” and, therefore, are not
cognizable in a § 2241 petition. See Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542-44 (3d Cir.
2002). None of his claims challenges the fact or length of his sentence or confinement.
See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by
the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit
I.O.P. 10.6.

-- 2 of 2 --