UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

JONATHAN GIANNONE,

Petitioner,

Case Number 09-12149-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

CHRISTOPHER ZYCH,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Jonathan Giannone is currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institute in

Milan, Michigan. He has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241. In the petition, Petitioner represents that he was convicted of three counts of wire fraud, 18

U.S.C. §§ 1343, and two counts of aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, in the United States

District Court for the District of South Carolina, and was sentenced to sixty-five months

imprisonment and three years of supervised release in 2007. Petitioner contends that he is being

held in a higher security facility than warranted based upon hearsay from an unreliable jailhouse

informant that he is a flight risk. Petitioner seeks a transfer to a minimum security facility within

500 miles of his family, which he believes will increase his chances for placement in a residential

reentry center upon completion of the residential drug abuse program. Petitioner also seeks the

removal of a management variable from his file. Petitioner represents that he has exhausted his

administrative remedies.

1:09-cv-12149-TLL-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 09/03/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 26
-2-

Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a

preliminary review of the petition to determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of the

petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”

Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If, after preliminary

consideration, the Court determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court must

summarily dismiss the petition. Rule 4; see also Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970)

(stating that the district court has the duty to “screen out” petitions that lack merit on their face).

A federal district court is authorized to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it plainly

appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to

federal habeas relief. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d

434, 436 (6th Cir. 1999); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

After undertaking the preliminary review required by Rule 4, the Court concludes that the

petition must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is wellsettled that prison classifications, assignments, and transfers are functions wholly within the

discretion of the BOP. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427

U.S. 215, 225 (1976). Federal prisoners do not have a due process liberty interest in their

classification while incarcerated. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976). Similarly,

federal prisoners do not have a liberty interest in remaining free from discretionary transfers to less

agreeable prisons. Meachum, 427 U.S. at 225. Prisoners also have no right to be housed in a

particular institution or a particular part of an institution. See Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236,

242 (1976); Caderno v. Thoms, 50 F. App’x 200, 201 (6th Cir. 2002) (collecting cases).

1:09-cv-12149-TLL-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 09/03/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 27
-3-

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that a federal inmate who

challenges his security classification fails to state a cognizable claim upon habeas review. See

Bazuaye v. Bogan, 19 F.3d 18 (table), 1994 WL 75895, at *2 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Olim, 461 U.S.

at 245, and Newell v. Brown, 981 F.2d 880, 883 (6th Cir. 1992)). Because Petitioner challenges his

prison classification in this action and seeks a prison transfer, he fails to state a claim upon which

habeas relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See, e.g., Hodges v. Eichenlaub, No. 07-

14874, 2008 WL 4298495, *1-2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2008) (summarily dismissing similar § 2241

petition). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: September 3, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on September 3, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-12149-TLL-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 09/03/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 28