Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_15-cv-00130/USCOURTS-ared-2_15-cv-00130-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JOSEPH CRUSE 

Reg. # 25076-045 PETITIONER 

VS. 2:15CV00130 JLH/JTR 

CV RIVERA, 

Warden, FCI Forrest City RESPONDENT 

 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

 The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been 

sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. You may file written 

objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections 

must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and 

(2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of 

this Recommendation. The failure to timely file objections may result in waiver of 

the right to appeal questions of fact. 

 Mail any objections to: 

 Clerk, United States District Court 

 Eastern District of Arkansas 

 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

Case 2:15-cv-00130-JLH Document 12 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 5
2 

I. Background 

 Petitioner, Joseph Cruse (“Cruse”), is a federal prisoner incarcerated at FCI 

Forest City. He initiated this § 2241 habeas action on August 20, 2015. Doc. 1. 

 In his Petition, he alleges that, on August 5, 2015, he was unconstitutionally 

detained in the Special Housing Unit (“SHU”) “for no specified reason, except that 

he may have other pending charges and an idle threat made by the SIS [Special 

Investigative Services] staff.” Doc. 1 at 2. 

 On December 28, 2015, Cruse filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining 

Order (doc. 9) requesting an “immediate transfer” from FCI Forrest City, based on 

allegedly inadequate medical care. Doc. 9. 

 Respondent argues that Cruse: (1) has failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies; (2) has not stated a cognizable habeas claim; and (3) is not entitled to 

injunctive relief. Docs. 8 and 11. 

 For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that the Petition for 

a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, be 

denied. 

II. Discussion 

 A. Cruse’s Habeas Claim 

 Cruse is currently serving a twelve-month sentence, imposed on June 3, 

2015, for the revocation of his supervised release. Doc. 8-1 at 7-8. Respondent has 

Case 2:15-cv-00130-JLH Document 12 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 5
3 

produced the Affidavit of Byron Flint, an Investigative Specialist with the Bureau 

of Prisons. Doc. 8-1 at 12. According to Mr. Flint, Cruse “is a subject of a federal 

investigation into the beating death of an inmate at USP Leavenworth in April 

2014.” Id. Furthermore, “[a]t the request of a different federal agency, Inmate 

Cruse has been held in the Special Housing Unit in Administrative Segregation, 

and not Disciplinary Segregation, since August 5, 2015 pending the outcome of the 

investigation.”1 Id. Consistent with the facts alleged in Mr. Flint’s Affidavit, Cruse 

admits in his habeas Petition that he is being housed in the SHU “for no specified 

reason, except that he may have other pending charges . . . .” 

 Thus, Cruse is not being held in the SHU for a disciplinary conviction, 

which could be properly challenged in a § 2241 habeas action if the conviction 

resulted in Cruse losing good-time credits. See Portley-El v. Brill, 288 F.3d 1063, 

1066-67 (8th Cir. 2002). It is well-established that “[i]f [a] prisoner is not 

challenging the validity of his conviction or the length of his detention, such as loss 

of good time, then a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy.” Kruger v. 

Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1073 (8th Cir.1996)). 

 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Cruse has not stated a viable claim for 

habeas relief. 

 1

 In a Supplemental Affidavit, FCI Associate Warden Michelle Parnell states that Cruse was returned to 

general population on December 23, 2015. Doc. 11-2 at 3. 

Case 2:15-cv-00130-JLH Document 12 Filed 01/08/16 Page 3 of 5
4 

 A. Cruse’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

In his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Cruse alleges that, despite 

having an antibiotic allergy noted in his institutional file, unnamed BOP staff gave 

him an antibiotic shot which caused an allergic reaction requiring his 

hospitalization.2 Doc. 9. By way of injunctive relief, he requests “an immediate 

transfer from [FCI Forrest City] to an unbiased institution” for his “safety” and so 

he can “focus” on pursuing his habeas claim. Doc. 9 at 2. 

 Preliminary relief is granted “to preserve the status quo and prevent 

irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit’s merits.”3

Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). Thus, the party requesting 

preliminary relief must “establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the 

party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Id. Cruse has not 

established any relationship between the alleged denial of medical care and the 

 2

 Respondent has submitted the Affidavit of Dr. Martin Tindel, the Clinical Director at FCI Forrest City. 

According to Dr. Tindel, Cruse’s medical records show that he is allergic to penicillin, cephalosporin, amoxicillin, 

and doxepin HCL. Doc. 11-1 at 2. On August 24, 2015, Cruse was seen by health services staff for a reported spider 

bite, which appeared infected. Id. He was prescribed ten days of “Bactrin, a sulfa medication, and doxycycline, a 

tetracycline medication.” Doc. 11-1 at 3. According to Dr. Tindel, the medications prescribed to Cruse were not 

“chemically related” to the medications he was allergic to. Id. 

 On August 24, 2015, Cruse reported “wheezing and had developed an allergic reaction after receiving his 

medication. He was given diphenhydramine and epinephrine injections and transferred to the local hospital. Id. 

According to the hospital records, the “allergic reaction was mild and was improved prior to his return to the 

institution.” Id. Dr. Tindel opines that Cruse had an allergic reaction, but that it is “uncertain” as to what caused it. 

Id. 3

 When deciding whether to grant a prisoner preliminary injunctive relief, a court must consider: (1) the 

threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the balance between the harm to the movant and the harm to the 

nonmoving party should the injunction issue; (3) the likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) the public interest. 

Arnzen v. Palmer, 713 F.3d 369, 372 (8th Cir. 2013). Importantly, the movant bears the burden of establishing that 

he is entitled to a preliminary injunction. Roudachevski v. All-Am. Care Ctrs., Inc., 648 F.3d 701, 705 (8th Cir. 

2011). 

Case 2:15-cv-00130-JLH Document 12 Filed 01/08/16 Page 4 of 5
5 

purported habeas claim he raises in his Petition. Additionally, he has not provided 

any facts or supporting documents demonstrating that he will be irreparably 

harmed if preliminary injunctive relief is denied. Thus, he is not entitled to 

preliminary relief. See, e.g., Devose, 42 F.3d at 471. 

III. Conclusion 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petition for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus, and Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, be 

DENIED, and that the case be DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE. 

 Dated this 8th day of January, 2016. 

 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00130-JLH Document 12 Filed 01/08/16 Page 5 of 5