Washington v. Warden of USP-Canaan

Full title: ELDON LAMAR WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. WARDEN OF USP-CANAAN, Respondent

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1:21-cv-211

Date published: Mar 24, 2021

Fact:

On February 5, 2021, pro se Petitioner Eldon Lamar Washington (“Petitioner”), who is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary Canaan in Waymart, Pennsylvania (“USP Canaan”), initiated the above-captioned action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner maintains that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is violating his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide safe living conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id.) Petitioner asserts that he is “at special risk of infection and is less able to participate in proactive measures to stay safe.” (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) He alleges that his mental health has also deteriorated. (Id. at 4.) As relief, Petitioner seeks release. (Id.) Following an Order to show cause (Doc. No. 7), Respondent filed a response on March 5, 2021 (Doc. No. 12). Upon review of Petitioner’s submissions and Respondent’s response, the Court will deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition. 

Issue:

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner’s motion for discovery and a telephonic hearing (Doc. No. 13) will be denied. An appropriate Order follows.

Petitioner seeks discovery to prove that the Warden of USP Canaan “is not the actual reviewer and/or denier of [his] request for compassionate release, but it was in fact [his] unit manager in violation of Petitioner’s due process rights.” (Doc. No. 13 at 1.) Petitioner requests a telephonic hearing to present testimony from his Unit Manager as to this, as well as testimony regarding Counselor B. Roberts’ “refusal to provide inmates with administrative remedy forms and/or destruction of the same.” (Id.) Such information is not pertinent to the Court’s resolution of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition. His motion, therefore, will be denied.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 + fourteen =