Bennie Overton v. Warden Gilley

Summary

The court granted Warden Gilley’s motion to dismiss Bennie Overton’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. It held that Overton’s claims concerning retaliation, assault, communication restrictions, and placement in a residential reentry center or home confinement challenged conditions of confinement and were not cognizable in habeas proceedings. The court also concluded that the claims concerning email, telephone restrictions, and residential reentry center placement were moot because the restrictions had ended and Overton had been transferred to an RRC.

Holdings

1. Claims challenging the conditions of a prisoner's confinement, including alleged retaliation, assault, denial of email and telephone access, and housing or placement conditions, are not cognizable in a § 2241 habeas petition because they challenge the conditions rather than the fact or duration of confinement.
2. A federal prisoner has no constitutionally protected right to serve the final 12 months of a sentence in a residential reentry center or home confinement.
3. Claims concerning telephone and email restrictions and requested RRC placement were moot because the restrictions had ended and Overton had received RRC placement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Overton's claims concerning retaliation, assault, access to email and telephones, and placement in a residential reentry center or home confinement were cognizable in a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
2. Whether the claims concerning telephone and email restrictions and residential reentry center placement became moot after the restrictions ended and Overton received the requested placement.

Disposition

dismissed