Lipinski v. Warden, FCI Estill

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed Michelle Lipinski’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition without prejudice. The court held that the petitioner’s allegations concerning an intrusive search, denial of PREA reporting assistance, and inadequate psychological care challenged conditions of confinement rather than the fact or duration of custody. The court declined to recharacterize the petition as a PREA or Bivens action, concluding that the alleged facts did not state viable Fourth, Fifth, or Eighth Amendment claims.

Holdings

1. A § 2241 petition is not the appropriate vehicle for claims challenging the conditions of confinement rather than the fact or duration of custody.
2. The allegations did not state a Fourth Amendment claim because, even if true, they did not establish that the search was conducted in an unreasonable manner.
3. The allegations did not state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim because they amounted to conclusory assertions and an apparent disagreement with the psychologist's decision regarding evaluation and treatment.
4. The allegations did not state a Fifth Amendment due process claim based on officials' alleged failure to provide assistance with PREA reporting.
5. The court declined to recharacterize the § 2241 petition as a PREA or Bivens action and dismissed it without prejudice, leaving petitioner free to pursue a future Bivens action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether claims challenging the conditions of confinement, rather than the fact or duration of custody, may proceed through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
2. Whether the alleged forced removal of a menstrual device stated a Fourth Amendment claim.
3. Whether the allegations of inadequate psychological treatment stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim.
4. Whether the alleged denial of access to PREA reporting procedures stated a Fifth Amendment due process claim.
5. Whether the court should recharacterize the § 2241 petition as a Bivens action or a PREA claim.

Disposition

dismissed