CLD-271                                                           NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                  ___________

                                       No. 10-1750
                                       ___________

                                ANDREW BEDENFIELD,
                                               Appellant

                                             v.

                               WARDEN LEWISBURG
                       ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                              (D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-02264)
                        District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
                      ____________________________________

         Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
         or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                   August 19, 2010

          Before: BARRY, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.

                                (Filed: September 9, 2010)
                                        _________

                                        OPINION
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Petitioner Andrew Bedenfield, an inmate currently incarcerated at USP Lewisburg,

appeals pro se from the District Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because we conclude that this appeal presents no

substantial question, we will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

       In the petition, Bedenfield claimed that prison officials failed to hold a disciplinary

hearing after he was allegedly involved in a gang fight at USP Atwater. As a result of his

involvement in the fight, he was placed in the “Special Management Unit” (“SMU”) at

USP Lewisburg.1 He argues that the prison officials’ failure to hold a disciplinary hearing

violated his due process rights, and further claims that he does not meet the criteria for

placement in the SMU.

       The respondent filed a response to the petition, arguing that the petition should be

dismissed because Bedenfield’s claims are not cognizable under § 2241. The District

Court agreed and dismissed the petition. Bedenfield filed a timely appeal.

       We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the District

Court’s decision to dismiss Bedenfield’s § 2241 petition is plenary. See Cradle v. U.S. ex

rel. Miner, 

, 538 (3d Cir. 2002).

       Bedenfield’s habeas petition does not challenge the basic fact or duration of his

imprisonment, which is the “essence of habeas.” See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 

,

484, 498-99 (1973). “[W]hen the challenge is to a condition of confinement such that a

finding in plaintiff’s favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction, [a civil




       1
       Bedenfield’s projected release date from prison is October 20, 2012, via good
conduct time release.

                                              2
rights action] is appropriate.” Leamer v. Fauver, 

, 542 (3d Cir. 2002)

(dismissing civil rights action because claims should have been brought in a habeas

petition). Bedenfield’s challenge to his placement in the SMU is analogous to the

“garden variety prison transfer” that we have indicated should be challenged in a civil

rights action, not via a habeas petition. Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 

,

243 (3d Cir. 2005). He has not raised a claim that involves the execution of his sentence.

See 

Thus, we agree with the District Court that his claim is a challenge that

should be brought in an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed.

Bureau of Narcotics, 

(1971).2 See 

.

       Because the appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily

affirm the District Court’s order dismissing the petition without prejudice. See 3d Cir.

L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.




       2
         We note that the District Court considered that even if Bedenfield brings his
claims in a Bivens action, he is not likely to prevail. See, e.g., Griffin v. Vaughn, 

, 706 (3d. Cir. 1997) (15 months in administrative segregation did not implicate a
liberty interest); Fraise v. Terhune, 

, 522-23 (3d Cir. 2002) (transfer to
Security Threat Group Management Unit “STGMU”), through which gang leaders are
identified, isolated, and reprogrammed before release back into the general population,
does not implicate protected liberty interest).

                                             3