Jose Cardona v. B. Bledsoe
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12353
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Cardona, a federal inmate, petitions under 28 U.S.C. §2241 seeking habeas relief from his referral to the SMU as punishment for lawsuits against the BOP.
- The SMU is a four-step program restricting contact and property; referral is described as non-punitive and appropriate for serious disciplinary history, per the Program Statement.
- Referral occurred before February 27, 2009, while Cardona was housed at the U.S. Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania; he had filed multiple lawsuits challenging his conviction and confinement conditions.
- The District Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that placement in the SMU did not affect the fact or duration of his incarceration, thus not a habeas matter.
- Cardona argued the referral affected the execution of his sentence or, alternatively, could reduce his good-time credits relevant to sentence length.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding §2241 does not reach the challenged conduct because it does not pertain to execution of sentence or a guaranteed change in sentence duration; civil-rights action under Bivens remains possible for the conditions claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Cardona's petition challenge the execution of his sentence under §2241? | Cardona argues the SMU referral executes or administers his sentence. | BOP placement is not a command in the sentencing judgment and does not execute the sentence. | No; petition not proper §2241 execution challenge. |
| May Cardona challenge the length of confinement via §2241 due to potential loss of good-time credits? | Loss of good-time credits could shorten the sentence, making it a length-of-confinement issue. | Loss of credits is not guaranteed to shorten the sentence and may not be a habeas issue; Leamer guides the civil-rights route for conditions. | No; not a habeas challenge to sentence length; could be pursued as a civil rights claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005) (habeas jurisdiction under §2241 over execution-type challenges to BOP conduct)
- McGee v. Martinez, 627 F.3d 933 (3d Cir. 2010) (execution-of-sentence challenges to IFRP; §2241 proper when conflicting with sentencing judgment)
- Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532 (3d Cir. 2002) (claims challenging confinement conditions not necessarily relief by habeas; may be civil-rights)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (limits of habeas relief; execution vs. non-execution claims)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court 1994) (courts have limited jurisdiction; jurisdictional baselines for federal petitions)