Allen v. Hendrix, 2:19-CV-00107-BSM. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20200225678
Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 24, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2020
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER , District Judge . United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray's recommended disposition [Doc. No. 11] and the entire record, including Joseph Allen's objection, have been reviewed de novo. The RD is adopted in its entirety and Allen's petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. No. 1] is dismissed with prejudice. Dwayne Hendrix's motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 5] is denied as moot. Allen alleges the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") violated his right to due process by denying
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER , District Judge . United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray's recommended disposition [Doc. No. 11] and the entire record, including Joseph Allen's objection, have been reviewed de novo. The RD is adopted in its entirety and Allen's petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. No. 1] is dismissed with prejudice. Dwayne Hendrix's motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 5] is denied as moot. Allen alleges the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") violated his right to due process by denying ..
More
ORDER
BRIAN S. MILLER, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray's recommended disposition [Doc. No. 11] and the entire record, including Joseph Allen's objection, have been reviewed de novo. The RD is adopted in its entirety and Allen's petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. No. 1] is dismissed with prejudice. Dwayne Hendrix's motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 5] is denied as moot.
Allen alleges the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") violated his right to due process by denying him a transfer to a different facility where he could participate in certain programs. The RD correctly provides that a 28 U.S.C. section 2241 habeas corpus petition is not the correct vehicle for this type of relief. See Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 469 (8th Cir. 2014) (prisoners may only challenge conviction or sentence length in a § 2241 petition). Moreover, the BOP did not violate Allen's rights because he does not have a right to incarceration at a specific facility or to participate in specific programs. See Wilks v. Mundt, 25 Fed. App'x 492, 492 (8th Cir. 2002) (prisoner has no right to participate in specific prison programs).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
