Frederick H. Banks v. Warden Allenwood Fci

DLD-223 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 21-1839
___________
FREDERICK H. BANKS,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN ALLENWOOD FCI
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-21-cv-00708)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 15, 2021
Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 10, 2021)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Frederick Banks appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his petition filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the
District Court’s judgment.
Banks, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for habeas corpus in which he alleged
that prison officials were not sending his emails to his counsel representing him on his
direct appeal from his criminal conviction. He contended that he was discriminated
against as an American Indian. He requested that prison officials be ordered to send his
emails and enjoined from further illegal conduct. The District Court dismissed the
petition before service, concluding that Banks did not challenge the fact or duration of his
confinement and a habeas petition was not an appropriate remedy for his challenge to the
conditions of his confinement. This dismissal was without prejudice to Banks’ raising his
claims in a civil rights action. Banks filed a notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s legal conclusions. Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536,
538 (3d Cir. 2002). We may summarily affirm a district court’s decision “on any basis
supported by the record” if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See Murray
v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
The District Court did not err in concluding that Banks’s claims 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 challenged the fact or

-- 2 of 3 --

3
length of his sentence or confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500
(1973).
For the reasons above, as well as those set forth by the District Court, this appeal
does not present a substantial question. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the
District Court’s judgment.

-- 3 of 3 --