Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_19-cv-00107/USCOURTS-ared-2_19-cv-00107-1/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

DELTA DIVISION

JOSEPH R. ALLEN PETITIONER

REG #27249-045

v. CASE NO. 2:19-CV-00107-BSM

DEWAYNE HENDRIX RESPONDENT

ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray’s recommended disposition [Doc. No.

11] and the entire record, including Joseph Allen’s objection, have been reviewed de novo.

The RD is adopted in its entirety and Allen’s petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. No. 1]

is dismissed with prejudice. Dwayne Hendrix’s motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 5] is denied as moot.

Allen alleges the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) violated his right to due process by denying him

a transfer to a different facility where he could participate in certain programs. The RD correctly

provides that a 28 U.S.C. section 2241 habeas corpus petition is not the correct vehicle for this

type of relief. See Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 469 (8th Cir. 2014) (prisoners may only

challenge conviction or sentence length in a § 2241 petition). Moreover, the BOP did not

violate Allen’s rights because he does not have a right to incarceration at a specific facility

or to participate in specific programs. See Wilks v. Mundt, 25 Fed. App’x 492, 492 (8th Cir.

2002) (prisoner has no right to participate in specific prison programs).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of February, 2020.

 ________________________________

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00107-BSM Document 13 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 1