PSM
- 175 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10

- 4398

___________ MICHAEL CURTIS REYNOLDS , Appellant

v. DAVID EBBERT, Warden

____________________________________ On Appeal from t he United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:10

- cv
- 02164 ) District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

Ju ly 15, 2011
Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : July 27, 2011 )

___________ OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM Michael Curtis Reynolds , a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the
District Court’s order d enying his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For
the reason s that follow, we will affirm

.2 I. In 2007, Reynolds was convicted of multiple terrorism

- related offenses and sentenced by the District Court to 360 months’ imprisonment and th re e years’ supervised release. The court also imposed a special assessme nt of $500. We affirmed that judgment on direct appeal

. See United States v. Reynolds , 374 F. App’x 356, 358 (3d Cir. 2010).
In October 2010, Reynolds filed a pro se habeas petition in the District Court pursuant to § 2241. The petition did no t challenge the legality of Reynolds’s conviction or sentence. Rather, it alleged only that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) had violated his rights by issuing a “restitution payment schedule.” ( See Habeas Pet. 1.) In support of this claim, Reynolds maintained that “only a District Court may set a payment schedule for any fine, fee, or restitution .” ( Id. at 3.) On October 28, 2010, the District Court, acting sua sponte, denied the petition as m eritless

. In doing so, the court found that Reynolds had not been ordered to pay restitution or a fine, and concluded that the BOP
could indeed establish a payment schedule for collecting the $500 special assessment. This appeal followed.
II.
We h ave jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1 In reviewing
the denial of a § 2241 petition, “[w]e exercise plenary review over the District Court’s

1 Because we agree with the District Court that Reynolds’s habeas petition was prop erly brought under § 2241, he does not need to obtain a certificate of appealability to proceed with this appeal. See United States v. Cepero , 224 F.3d 256, 264

- 65 (3d Cir. 2000) (en banc).3

legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous standard to its findings of fact.” See
O’Donald v. Johns , 402 F.3d 172, 173 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Having considered Reynolds’s arguments, and f or substantially the reasons set forth in the
District Cou rt’s opinion, we agree with the C ourt’s decision to deny his habeas petition
on th e merits

. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
III.
We write further here to address the nume rous filings that Reynolds has submi tted to this Court since initiating this appeal. In these filings , he claims that prison officials at the Federal Correctional Institution at Allenwood in Pennsylvania

— his current place of
confinement

— have retaliated against him, interfered with his access to the courts, and
otherwise mistreated him

. He seeks, inter alia, a temporary restraining order prohibiting
this conduct. Reynolds’s requests for relief are hereby denied without prejudice , as his claims

are not properly before this Court. To the extent he wishes to pursue these claims , he
should file a complaint in the District Court . We note, h owever, that Reynolds , a frequent litigator in the federal courts, has “three stri kes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, to file a complaint in the District Court, he must either pay the filing fee in
full or demonstrate that he is in “imminent dang er of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We express no opinion on his ability to mee t the imminent danger
standard or prevail on the merits of his claims

.