NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 16-1307

___________

STEVEN A. JOHNSON, 

Appellant 

v.

WARDEN LEWISBURG USP

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(M.D. Pa. No. 1:16-cv-00013)

District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 16, 2016

Before: JORDAN, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: June 22, 2016)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Stephen A. Johnson appeals pro se from an order of the District Court dismissing 

his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the 

reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

Johnson is incarcerated at USP-Lewisburg within the Middle District of 

Pennsylvania. His habeas claims arise out of his transfer from USP-Atwater, in the 

Eastern District of California. First, Johnson claimed that his transfer violated his right to 

due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, Johnson claimed that the 

use of hand restraints at USP-Lewisburg amounted to cruel and unusual punishment 

under the Eighth Amendment. Third, Johnson claimed that his confinement to his cell 

while USP-Lewisburg was on “lockdown” denied him access to the courts under the First 

Amendment. Johnson prayed for a declaration that these constitutional rights were 

violated and an injunction requiring his transfer to another federal facility. The District 

Court dismissed the petition without prejudice as raising non-cognizable claims, and 

Johnson appealed.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and our 

review of the District Court’s dismissal of Johnson’s § 2241 petition is plenary. See

Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Section 

2241 gives federal district courts the power to grant a writ of habeas corpus to prisoners 

within their jurisdiction who are “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). To present a viable claim under 

§ 2241, a prisoner must challenge the “execution” of his sentences. Coady v. Vaughn, 

251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001). Although we have characterized the precise meaning 

of execution as “hazy,” we have said that such claims properly address the way a 

sentence is “put into effect” or “carr[ied] out[.]” Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 
3

F.3d 235, 242-43 (3d Cir. 2005); Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533, 537 (3d Cir. 2012) 

(explaining that, in order for a prisoner to challenge the execution of his sentence under 

§ 2241, he must allege that the “[Federal Bureau of Prisons’] conduct was somehow 

inconsistent with a command or recommendation in the sentencing judgment”).

In this case, Johnson did not present a proper § 2241 claim. Johnson’s allegations 

concern the fact of his transfer between two high-security prisons and the conditions of 

his confinement, not the manner in which the government is carrying out his sentencing 

judgment. See id.; Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen the 

challenge is to a condition of confinement such that a finding in plaintiff’s favor would 

not alter his sentence or undo his conviction, an action under § 1983 [and not habeas 

corpus] is appropriate.”). Although Johnson asserts that there are differences between the 

conditions at USP-Lewisburg and USP-Atwater, his transfer did not “cross[] the line

beyond a challenge to . . . a garden variety prison transfer.” See Woodall, 432 F.3d at

243 (holding that “[c]arrying out a sentence through detention in a [a community 

correction center] is very different from carrying out a sentence in an ordinary penal 

institution.”); accord Pischke v. Litscher, 178 F.3d 497, 499-500 (7th Cir. 1999).

Consequently, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.