Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_20-cv-00014/USCOURTS-ared-2_20-cv-00014-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Cobb
Plaintiff
Dewayne Hendrix
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

DELTA DIVISION 

CHRISTOPHER COBB, * 

Reg #71257-019 * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * 

v. * No. 2:20-cv-00014-LPR-JJV 

 * 

DEWAYNE HENDRIX, Warden * 

Forrest City Federal Correctional Institution, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Lee 

P. Rudofsky. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections 

should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection 

is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your 

objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United 

States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and 

recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely 

objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or 

additional evidence, and to have a new hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or 

Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following: 

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 

2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted) 

was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 2:20-cv-00014-LPR Document 4 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 4
2 

3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form 

of an offer of proof, and a copy or the original of any documentary or other non-testimonial 

evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing. 

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional 

evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and AStatement of Necessity@ to: 

Clerk, United States District Court 

Eastern District of Arkansas 

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

DISPOSITION 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Mr. Cobb filed the instant § 2241 Petition on January 23, 2020. (Doc. No. 1.) He claims 

the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has violated his constitutional rights by falsely classifying him under 

the “Greatest Severity” level of their Offense Severity Scale and placing him in low security 

confinement, as opposed to placement in the satellite prison “camp” for minimum-security 

offenders. (Id.) Because § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for Petitioner’s claim and there is no due 

process violation here, I recommend his Petition be dismissed. 

II. ANALYSIS 

Relief under § 2241 shall not extend to a prisoner unless he is “in custody in violation of 

the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). “If ‘it plainly 

appears from the petition [and any attached exhibits] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 

the district court,’ the court must summarily dismiss the petition without ordering a responsive 

pleading.” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005) (quoting Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts). Habeas Rules 2 and 4 are applicable to 

§ 2241 petitions through Rule 1(b). To avoid summary dismissal of a § 2241 petition, a petitioner 

Case 2:20-cv-00014-LPR Document 4 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 4
3 

must state facts that “point to a real possibility of constitutional error” or violation of federal law.

Mayle, 545 U.S. at 655. Here, I find Mr. Cobb’s Petition is without merit and, based on Mayle, 

summary dismissal is appropriate. 

Even in squarely addressing the substance of Mr. Cobb’s claim, there is no due process 

violation here. “As long as the conditions or degree of confinement to which the prisoner is 

subjected is within the sentence imposed upon him and is not otherwise violative of the 

Constitution, the Due Process Clause does not in itself subject an inmate’s treatment by prison 

authorities to judicial oversight.” Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976) (quoted in Hewitt 

v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983), and Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 480 (1995)). Mr. Cobb 

has not established that his assignment to the Greatest Severity PSF has subjected him to “atypical 

and significant hardship.” Sandin, 515 U.S at 484. Additionally, Congress has delegated to the 

BOP the authority to determine a prisoner’s classification and place of confinement to the BOP. 

See 28 C.F.R. § 0.96; BOP Program Statement 5100.08, Inmate Security Designation and Custody 

Classification. A prisoner possesses no liberty interest in a particular custody level or place of 

confinement. See, e.g., Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-46 (1983); Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 

466-67; Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9 (1976); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25, 

(1976); Montanye, 427 U.S. at 242. Accordingly, no liberty interest attached to Mr. Cobb with the 

assignment of Greatest Severity PSF. Because no due process violation is implicated by his 

placement, I recommend this Petition be dismissed.

III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a district court “must 

issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A 

certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

Case 2:20-cv-00014-LPR Document 4 Filed 02/19/20 Page 3 of 4
4 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). No such showing has been made here, 

and no certificate of appealability should issue. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that: 

 1. Mr. Cobb’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED with 

prejudice. 

 2. A certificate of appealability not be issued. 

 SO ORDERED this 19th day of February 2020. 

 

__________________________ 

JOE J. VOLPE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:20-cv-00014-LPR Document 4 Filed 02/19/20 Page 4 of 4