Eric Perdomo v. Warden Loretto FCI
700 F. App'x 93
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Eric Perdomo pleaded guilty to a cocaine-distribution conspiracy and was sentenced (later reduced from 80 to 65 months).
- While at a minimum-security camp in 2014, BOP applied a Greater Security Management Variable after finding he had extorted another inmate.
- Perdomo was transferred to a low-security FCI and exhausted BOP administrative remedies without success.
- He filed a § 2241 habeas petition in the Western District of Pennsylvania challenging the custody classification.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; the District Court adopted the recommendation and dismissed Perdomo’s petition.
- Perdomo conceded § 2241 is not cognizable for his claim and asked the court to recharacterize the petition as a Bivens or declaratory action; the court refused to recharacterize.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a challenge to BOP custody classification is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 | Perdomo argued his custody classification was improper and sought relief via § 2241 | BOP argued § 2241 is limited to challenges to fact/duration of confinement and execution inconsistent with sentencing | Dismissed: § 2241 does not cover garden-variety custody classification challenges absent conflict with sentencing directives |
| Whether Perdomo alleged BOP conduct inconsistent with sentencing order so as to fall within Woodall exception | Perdomo did not assert any sentencing court recommendation about security designation | BOP emphasized absence of sentencing directive or recommendation | Held: Perdomo failed to allege any inconsistency with the sentencing judgment; Woodall exception inapplicable |
| Whether the District Court should recharacterize the § 2241 petition as a Bivens or declaratory action | Perdomo asked the court to construe his petition as Bivens or for declaratory relief | Respondent argued recharacterization was not required and different rules/fees apply | Held: Court did not abuse discretion in refusing to recharacterize the petition |
| Whether appellate jurisdiction and review standards allow summary affirmance | Perdomo appealed dismissal | Government defended dismissal; court cited governing precedents | Held: Appellate court had jurisdiction and summarily affirmed the District Court’s dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (habeas addresses validity of confinement or its duration)
- Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005) (§ 2241 can reach BOP action that contradicts sentencing judgment/recommendation)
- Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533 (3d Cir. 2012) (to use § 2241, inmate must allege BOP conduct inconsistent with sentencing judgment)
- Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2009) (certificate of appealability not required to appeal § 2241 dismissal)
- Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002) (plenary review of district court’s dismissal of § 2241 petition)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (establishes implied damages action for constitutional violations by federal agents)