BANKS v. WARDEN ALLENWOOD FCI (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Frederick H. BANKS, Appellant v. WARDEN ALLENWOOD FCI

No. 21-1839

Decided: August 10, 2021

Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges Frederick H. Banks, Joint Base MDL, NJ, Pro Se. Navin Jani, Esq., Joseph J. Terz, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Middle District of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA, for Appellee.

OPINION *

Frederick Banks appeals the District Court's order dismissing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the District Court's judgment.

Banks, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for habeas corpus in which he alleged that prison officials were not sending his emails to his counsel representing him on his direct appeal from his criminal conviction. He contended that he was discriminated against as an American Indian. He requested that prison officials be ordered to send his emails and enjoined from further illegal conduct. The District Court dismissed the petition before service, concluding that Banks did not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement and a habeas petition was not an appropriate remedy for his challenge to the conditions of his confinement. This dismissal was without prejudice to Banks’ raising his claims in a civil rights action. Banks filed a notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the District Court's legal conclusions. Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). We may summarily affirm a district court's decision “on any basis supported by the record” if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

The District Court did not err in concluding that Banks's claims do not lie at the “core of habeas” and, therefore, are not cognizable in a § 2241 petition. See Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542-44 (3d Cir. 2002). None of his claims challenged the fact or length of his sentence or confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973).

For the reasons above, as well as those set forth by the District Court, this appeal does not present a substantial question. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court's judgment.

PER CURIAM