ALD-334 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 14-1456
____________
MARCO MIGUEL ROBERTSON,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN J.E. THOMAS
__________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 3-13-cv-02551)
District Judge: A. Richard Caputo
__________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 14, 2014
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 8, 2014)
____________
OPINION
____________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Marco Miguel Robertson appeals from an order of the District Court
dismissing his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, without prejudice. For the
reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.
Robertson, an inmate housed in the Special Management Unit of the United States
Penitentiary, Lewisburg, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging that he suffers from
numerous physicals symptoms as a result of an undiagnosed and untreated physical
trauma caused by a cellmate. Robertson alleged that, in addition to a failure to treat his
symptoms, prison staff improperly use ambulatory restraints on him, falsify documents
relating to him, verbally harass him; and twice they attempted to murder him. Robertson
sought a transfer to a medical or psychiatric facility where he can receive appropriate
treatment and counseling. After the Warden responded to the petition and sought its
dismissal, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation, concluding that
Robertson was not entitled to use a habeas corpus action to challenge the conditions of
his confinement. The District Court agreed and denied the habeas corpus petition without
prejudice to Robertson’s right to reassert his claims in a properly filed civil rights action.
Robertson appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291. Our
Clerk advised him that the appeal was subject to summary action under Third Cir. LAR
27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. Robertson was invited to submit argument in writing and he has
done so. In his submission, he again complains about conditions in the Special
Management Unit and his medical and psychological problems.
We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court because no substantial
question is presented by this appeal, Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. The
District Court properly determined that habeas corpus review is available only where the
deprivation of constitutional rights impacts the fact or length of the prisoner’s detention,
2
Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532 (3d Cir. 2002). Robertson’s claims do not meet this test.
Although he asked to be transferred to a hospital, he did not claim entitlement to a
speedier release from custody, nor was he challenging the legality of his present
incarceration. His allegations concerning deficient medical care in the SMU and other
conditions of his confinement do not “spell speedier release,” and thus do not lie at the
“‘the core of habeas corpus.’” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005) (quoting
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973)). See also Leamer, 288 F.3d at 542-44.
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order
dismissing the habeas corpus petition without prejudice to Robertson’s right to reassert
his claims in a civil rights action following the exhaustion of his administrative remedies.
3