IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


WANELEY WRAY BROWN, 


Petitioner 

3: 15-cv-1680 

v. 

(Judge Mariani) 

LORETTA LYNCH, et al., 

Respondents 

MEMORANDUM 

Petitioner, Waneley Wray Brown, a native and citizen of Jamaica, filed the instant 

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued 

detention by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (uICEn). (Doc. 1). 

Petitioner affirmatively states that he only seeks monetary relief. (Id.). Petitioner is 

currently confined at the Pike County Correctional Facility, in Lords Valley, Pennsylvania. 

(Id.). For the following reasons, the petition will be dismissed. 

I. Standard of Review· Screening 

Habeas corpus petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must be promptly 

screened and are subject to summary dismissaIU[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and 

any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.n Rule 4 of 

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; Patton v. 

Fenton, 491 F. Supp. 156, 158 (M.D. Pa. 1979) (Nealon, J.). UA petition may be dismissed 

without review of an answer 'when the petition is frivolous, or obviously lacking in merit, or 

Case 3:15-cv-01680-RDM-CA Document 5 Filed 10/05/15 Page 1 of 4
where ... the necessary facts can be determined from the petition itself ....tI, Belt v. 

Scism, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97052, *2-3 (M.D. Pa. 2010) (Muir, J.) (quoting Allen v. 

Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 906 (1970)). 

II. Discussion 

It is well-settled that a habeas corpus petition may be brought by a prisoner who 

seeks to challenge either the fact or duration of his confinement in prison. Preiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 (1973); Santos v. Ebbert, 2010 WL 5018954, *2 (M.D. Pa. 

2010) (Nealon, J.). Federal habeas corpus review is available only "where the deprivation 

of rights is such that it necessarily impacts the fact or length of detention." Leamer v. 

Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002). 

Petitioner states that he has been in ICE custody since November 26,2014. (Doc. 1 

at 2). On March 23,2015, Petitioner was ordered removed. (Id.). Petitioner thereafter filed 

an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the case was remanded on August 14, 

2015. (Id.). On August 28,2015, Petitioner filed the instant "petition for writ of habeas 

corpus for monetary relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241" based on his alleged illegal 

detention. (Id.). He requests that the Court "compensate Petitioner's wrongful and unlawful 

detention by Respondents." (Id. at 1). Specifically, Petitioner seeks compensation in the 

amount of $200,000 per day from November 26,2014 to present. (Id. at 5-6). 

Monetary damages are not available to Petitioner by means of a habeas corpus 

2 

Case 3:15-cv-01680-RDM-CA Document 5 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 4
action, which is achallenge to the very fact or duration of physical imprisonment and which 

involves relief in the form of the immediate release or aspeedier release from that 

imprisonment. See Preiser, 411 U.S. 475; Marine v. Quintana, 347 Fed. App'x 736 (3d Cir. 

2009) (affirming that money damages are not available in a habeas action). Petitioner does 

not seek release from prison, nor does he seek to be released sooner from prison. Rather, 

he only seeks monetary relief. However, because habeas relief is available only when 

prisoners "seek to invalidate the duration of their confinement - either directly through an 

injunction compelling speedier release or indirectly through ajudicial determination that 

necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the [government's] custody," Wilkinson v. Dotson, 

544 U.S. 74,81 (2005), and Petitioner does not seek either speedier release or ajudicial 

determination that necessarily implies the unlawfulness of his incarceration, the instant 

habeas petition will be dismissed. 

Monetary damages for illegal confinement are more appropriately brought by means 

of acivil rights action. Even if the Court were to consider Petitioner's petition as acivil 

rights claim, it would be subject to dismissal as it is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 

477,486-87, (1994). In Heck, the United States Supreme Court held that where ajudgment 

in favor of a plaintiff would necessarily implicate the invalidity of the conviction or the length 

of sentence, acause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not cognizable unless the plaintiff 

can show that his underlying "conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, 

3 


Case 3:15-cv-01680-RDM-CA Document 5 Filed 10/05/15 Page 3 of 4
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by astate tribunal authorized to make such a 

determination, or called into question by afederal court's issuance of awrit of habeas 

corpus." 512 U.S. 477 (1994). "The complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can 

demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated." Id. at 487. 

Thus, Petitioner has no civil cause of action for monetary damages unless and until the 

conviction or sentence he is challenging is reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by 

the granting of awrit of habeas corpus. Id. Petitioner cannot obtain damages for acause 

of unlawful imprisonment until the basis for that imprisonment is rendered invalid. 

III. Conclusion 

Based on the foregoing, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed. 

Aseparate order shall issue. 

Date: October ~ ,2015 

4 


Case 3:15-cv-01680-RDM-CA Document 5 Filed 10/05/15 Page 4 of 4