IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH ANTHONY CRUM, : No. 4:06-CV-00481

:

Petitioner, : (Judge McClure)

:

v. : (Magistrate Judge Blewitt)

:

CAMERON LINDSAY, Warden, :

:

Respondent. :

O R D E R

April 11, 2006

BACKGROUND:

Petitioner Joseph Anthony Crum is presently incarcerated at USP-Canaan in

Waymart, Pennsylvania. On March 6, 2006, Crum filed this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was initially referred to

United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt.

Crum’s petition arises from an allegedly defective disciplinary proceeding

conducted at FCI-Ray Brook on June 27, 2005. FCI-Ray Brook is in upstate New

York, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern

District of New York. 

Crum alleges that while at FCI-Ray Brook, he was prevented from calling

witnesses and presenting physical evidence at a prison disciplinary hearing. Crum

Case 4:06-cv-00481-JFM Document 7 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 4
1

In his “General Objections,” Crum stated that “ Petitioner object [sic] to the

subject of petitioners [sic] claim in which petitioner challenge the hearing findings

2

also alleges that the hearing was untimely, and that the discipline committee falsified

hearing documents to disguise this violation of prison policy. 

Magistrate Judge Blewitt recommended that Crum’s § 2241 habeas petition

be construed as a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and that the case be transferred

to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). While we agree with the magistrate judge that Crum’s

habeas petition should be construed as a Bivens action, we find that transfer is

inappropriate. We will therefore dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

DISCUSSION:

Crum does not challenge “the fact or duration of his physical confinement

itself, . . . [nor does he] seek[] immediate release or a speedier release from that

confinement–the heart of habeas corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498

(1973). Instead, Crum complains of procedural defects in a prison disciplinary

hearing. As the magistrate judge noted, Crum makes no claim for restoration of

lost good time credits.1 We agree with the magistrate judge that petitioner’s claim

Case 4:06-cv-00481-JFM Document 7 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 4
which of itself shows that the only relief petitioner seeks for relief is to restore

saction [sic] of loss [sic] good time credit.” (Rec. Doc. No. 6, at ¶ 2.) Crum does

not further explain this objection. The balance of Crum’s page and a half of

objections reveal his wish to amend or resubmit his petition. As explained below,

Crum may file a civil action under Bivens in the United States District Court for the

Northern District of New York.

3

should be construed as a civil rights action under Bivens challenging the conditions

of his prison life. 

The magistrate judge also recommended that the case be transferred to the

Northern District of New York. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the

convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may

transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been

brought.” Crum might have brought his Bivens action in the Northern District of

New York, because it is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Any

defendants, witnesses, and documents are also presumably located within the

Northern District of New York. The United States District Court for the Northern

District of New York is therefore the appropriate forum for Crum to pursue his

Case 4:06-cv-00481-JFM Document 7 Filed 04/11/06 Page 3 of 4
4

Bivens action. However, we decline to transfer the case to that district.

The filing fee for a habeas corpus petition is five dollars. The filing fee for a

civil action is three hundred and fifty dollars. If we were to simply construe habeas

petitions as civil actions, prisoners would easily circumvent the normal filing

process for civil actions and abuse habeas corpus. We therefore decline to transfer

this case to the Northern District of New York. The magistrate’s report will be

adopted in part. Crum is free to file a civil action in the Northern District of New

York to pursue his Bivens claim.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

Thomas M. Blewitt is adopted in part. (Rec. Doc. No. 5.)

2. Joseph Anthony Crum’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 is dismissed.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

James F. McClure, Jr.

United States District Judge 

Case 4:06-cv-00481-JFM Document 7 Filed 04/11/06 Page 4 of 4