Fillman v. Stancil, 1:15-cv-02299

Applicant Barry P. Fillman, a federal prisoner at Florence CI, filed a pro se § 2241 habeas application complaining the BOP failed to respond to his medical-care grievances and asking for an injunction compelling compliance with the BOP Administrative Remedy Program.
The court construes pro se filings liberally but will not act as an advocate for Fillman.
The court reviewed the nature of habeas relief under § 2241 versus civil rights actions for conditions of confinement.
Fillman’s core complaint was denial of access to BOP’s administrative grievance process related to medical care.
The court determined that alleged denial of grievance procedures does not implicate habeas relief and does not create a protected liberty interest triggering due process protection.
The application was denied and dismissed without prejudice; in forma pauperis on appeal was denied and no certificate of appealability issued.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper vehicle for relief	Fillman sought § 2241 habeas to compel BOP grievance compliance	BOP (implicitly) that grievance-administration claims are not habeas issues	Court: § 2241 unavailable for challenges to conditions/administration; such claims belong in Bivens/§ 1983 civil-rights actions
Whether denial of grievance process is cognizable under § 2241	Denial of access to BOP administrative remedies regarding medical care infringes rights and warrants habeas relief	Administrative grievance procedures do not create a liberty interest; denial does not violate constitutional due process	Court: Denial of grievance procedures does not create a protected liberty interest and fails to state a § 2241 due process claim
Procedural due process elements	Fillman asserts he was deprived of process by BOP's failure to respond	BOP (and precedent) require a protected liberty or property interest to trigger due process protection	Court: No legitimate entitlement to grievance procedures; therefore no procedural due process violation
Relief and posture	Fillman seeks injunction compelling BOP to follow its Administrative Remedy Program	BOP not required by Constitution to provide grievance procedures; remedy lies in civil rights suit	Court: Denies habeas relief; directs Fillman to file a separate prisoner civil rights (Bivens) action if he wishes to challenge grievance administration

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se filings construed liberally)
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas corpus traditionally seeks release from illegal custody)
McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809 (10th Cir. 1997) (distinguishing § 2241 challenge to sentence execution from collateral attack on conviction)
Standifer v. Ledezma, 653 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2011) (conditions-of-confinement claims must be brought under § 1983 or Bivens, not habeas)
Zwygart v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 483 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 2007) (elements of procedural due process claim require protected liberty or property interest)
Ky. Dept. of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (1989) (setting forth procedural due process elements)
Boyd v. Werholtz, [citation="443 F. App'x 331"] (10th Cir. 2011) (prison grievance procedures do not create a liberty interest)
Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir. 1991) (federal prison administrative remedy procedures do not themselves create a liberty interest)
Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72 (4th Cir. 1994) (no constitutional entitlement to grievance procedures)
Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1988) (no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (standard for good-faith appeal and IFP appeals)