Vincent v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAMON PIERRE VINCENT ,
Petitioner
V.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondent
Civil No. 3:26-cv-570
(Judge Mariani)
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, filed by Ramon Vincent ("Vincent"), an inmate in the custody of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). 	(Doc. 1). 	The Court has conducted preliminary review and, for
the reasons set forth below, has concluded that dismissal of the petition is warranted . See
R. GOVERNING§ 2254 CASES R. 4, 1(b). 1
I. 	Background
In the habeas petition, Vincent alleges that medical staff at USP-Canaan are
"incompetent" and provided inadequate medical care. 	(Doc. 1, at 2-4). 	He asserts that
1 	See R. GOVERNING§ 2254 CASES R. 4, which provides "[i]f 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 and direct the clerk to notify the pet itioner ." These rules are applicable to petitions
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the discretion of the Court. Id. at R. 1(b).
Case 3:26-cv-00570-RDM-CA Document 4 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 3

medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. 	(Id. at 1, 5). 	For relief, Vincent seeks release from custody. (Id. at 6).
II. 	Discussion
A habeas petition may be brought by a prisoner who seeks to challenge either the
factor durat ion of his confinement. 	Preiserv. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 45,494 (1973).
"Habeas relief is clearly quite limited: 'The underlying purpose of proceedings under the
'Great Writ' of habeas corpus has traditionally been to 'inquire into the legality of the
detention, and the only judicial relief authorized was the discharge of the prisoner or his
admission to ba il, and that only if his detention were found to be unlawful. "' Leamer v.
Fauver , 288 F.3d 532 , 540 (3d Cir. 2002) (quot ing Powers of Congress and the Court
Regarding the Availability and Scope of Rev iew , 114 Harv.L.Rev. 1551, 1553 (2001)) .
"Conversely , when the challenge is to a condition of confinement such that a finding
in [petitioner 's] favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conv iction, an action under§
1983 is appropriate." Leamer, 288 F.3d at 542 . "[H]abeas corpus is not an appropriate or
available federal remedy." Linnen v. Armainis, 991 F.2d 1102, 1109 (3d Cir . 1993) (citing
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973)) (emphasis in original).
Vincent's petition plainly involves conditions of confinement. An inadequate medical
care claim does not lie at the "core of habeas" in that it does not challenge the fact or length
of a sentence or confinement and , therefore, is not cognizable in a§ 2241 petition . See
2
Case 3:26-cv-00570-RDM-CA Document 4 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 3

Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500; Leamer, 288 F.3d at 542-44. 	Consequently, the petition will be
dismissed without prejudice to Vincent's right to reassert his claim in a properly filed civil
rights action.
Ill. 	Conclusion
The Court will dismiss the petition for writ of habeas. 	(Doc. 1). A separate Order
shall issue.
Robert D. Mariani
United States District Judge
Dated: March _&_ , 2026
3
Case 3:26-cv-00570-RDM-CA Document 4 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 3