BLD-251 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1899
___________
MICHAEL ALAN CROOKER,
Appellant
v.
ROBERT WERLINGER, Warden, FCI Loretto
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-00070)
District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 22, 2010
Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 19, 2010)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Michael Crooker, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court
judgment denying the petition he filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his petition, Crooker
alleged that, during a 35-day confinement in the Special Housing Unit, he was denied:
the use of a comb; dental floss and dental picks; access to a typewriter; permission to
purchase more than the regular limit of postage stamps; and permission to possess one
cubic foot of legal files. Crooker sought unspecified declaratory and injunctive relief.
The District Court denied the petition, reasoning that Crooker was a litigant
subject to the “three-strike” rule of § 1915(g), and that he styled his complaint as a § 2241
petition so that he could avoid the filing fee applicable to suits under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).1
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Crooker is
proceeding in forma pauperis, we must dismiss the appeal if it “lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s legal
determinations and apply a clearly erroneous standard to its factual findings. See Cradle
v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
Crooker’s petition does not challenge the fact or duration of his imprisonment,
which are the essence of habeas. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 487
(1973). As we have explained, “when the challenge is to a condition of confinement such
1
Bivens creates a cause of action which is the federal equivalent of the 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action against state actors, and lies where the defendant has violated the plaintiff’s
rights under color of federal law. See Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 800 (3d
Cir. 2001).
2
that a finding in plaintiff’s favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction, an
action under § 1983 is appropriate.” Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002).
Nor did he challenge the manner in which his sentence was executed. Cf. Woodall v.
Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir. 2005) (indicating that while certain
types of transfers may give rise to habeas claims, “a garden variety prison transfer” would
not). Where the defendants are federal actors, the plaintiff should seek relief under
Bivens. See Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1339-41 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
3