MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Petitioner Latchmie Narayan Toolasprashad has filed a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a motion to expedite this case and a motion to stay his transfer from the Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI") at Ray Brook pending the outcome of his Petition. Dkt. Nos. 1-3. Petitioner has paid the required filing fee.*fn1
In his Petition, Petitioner challenges his impending transfer from FCI Ray Brook to a facility in Elkton, Ohio. Dkt. No. 1 at 2-7. Petitioner states that on April 29, 2010, he was found guilty of a disciplinary incident at FCI Fort Dix, and on June 1, 2010, he was transferred from FCI Fort Dix to FCI Ray Brook. Dkt. No. 1 at 3-4. Petitioner states that he appealed the disciplinary ruling, and on July 16, 2010, the decision was reversed and the incident report was expunged. Id. at 5.
Petitioner states that on July 19, 2010, he submitted an Inmate Request to Staff form to his case manager in which he asked that his custody classification be corrected and that he be transferred back to FCI Fort Dix. Dkt. No. 1 at 5; Ex. 5. On August 18, 2010, Petitioner filed an informal resolution (BP-8) at FCI Ray Brook asking that he be transferred back to FCI Fort Dix because that facility is closer to his family, and that on September 21, 2010, his request to was granted. Id.at 6-7; seeEx. 6. Petitioner states that it is his understanding that instead of honoring his request to be transferred to FCI Fort Dix, he will instead be transferred to a facility located in Elkton, Ohio because a medical transfer was initiated instead of a "lesser security" transfer. Id.at 7. Petitioner argues that because the incident report that resulted in his transfer from FCI Fort Dix was expunged, he should be returned to his pre-incident report status, including being housed at FCI Fort Dix. Id.at 7-10. In light of Petitioner's pro se status, the Court will direct a response to the Petition.
Petitioner has also filed (1) a motion to expedite this action because "a liberty interest exists for both his parents and himself" (Dkt. No. 2 at 1);*fn2 and (2) a motion asking that the Court issue an order preventing him from being transferred until his Petition is decided (Dkt. No. 3). A party seeking injunctive relief must ordinarily show "(1) irreparable harm and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of its claims to make them fair ground for litigation, plus a balance of the hardships tipping decidedly in favor of the moving party." Lynch v. City of New York, 589 F.3d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 2009)(quoting Plaza Health Labs., Inc. v. Perales, 878 F.2d 577, 580 (2d Cir. 1989)).
Nothing in the motions before this Court indicates that Petitioner will suffer irreparable injury if he is transferred from FCI Ray Brook to a facility in Ohio. Petitioner's likelihood of success on the merits in this case is doubtful because an inmate has no liberty interest in serving his or her sentence at a particular facility. SeeMeachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976). Congress has granted exclusive authority to the Attorney General (and the Bureau of Prisons) to designate the place of confinement for federal prisoners. See18 U.S.C. § 3621; United States v. Williams, 65 F.3d 301, 307 (2d Cir. 1995)(The Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has "sole discretion" to determine the facility in which a federal prisoner should be placed). Thus, Petitioner does not have a right to stop his relocation or to request confinement at any particular facility. Pedreira v. Lindsay,No. 08-CV-2304, 2008 WL 4185702, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008); Capra v. Warden, Metropolitan Correctional Center, No. 86-Civ-6656, 1986 WL 14301 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 1996). Petitioner's requests for expedited consideration of this Petition, and for an order enjoining his transfer, are therefore denied.
For the foregoing reasons, it is:
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve copies of the petition along with this Order upon Petitioner, Respondent and the United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, in accordance with the Local Rules; and it is further
ORDERED, that Petitioner's motion to expedite this action (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Petitioner's motion enjoining his transfer from FCI Ray Brook until his Petition is decided (Dkt. No. 3) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Respondent shall file and serve an answer to the Petition, and provide the Court with the records relevant to the Petition,*fn3 within sixty (60) daysof the date of this Order; and it is further
ORDERED, that upon the filing of the Respondent's answer, the Clerk shall forward the file to the Court ...