CROSBY v. MARSHALL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRACY WAYNE CROSBY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 3:25-185 DIRECTOR, BOP, WILLIAM MARSHALL, ) Judge Nora Barry Fischer III, et al., ) Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto ) Respondents. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER AND NOW, this 26th day of January, 2026, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto on August 6, 2025, (Docket No. 7), recommending that the § 2241 habeas petition1 which was ultimately filed by Petitioner Tracy Wayne Crosby against BOP Director William Marshall, III et al. be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he is attempting to bring a civil rights action complaining about prison conditions and an alleged lack of sufficient medical care using a 2241 habeas petition form, Petitioner’s objections which were timely filed within 14 days as directed by the Magistrate Judge, (Docket No. 9), this matter having been recently reassigned to the undersigned for prompt disposition, and upon independent review of the record and de novo 1 The petition was initially lodged without the payment of a filing fee or an accompanying motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the case was administratively closed. (Docket Nos. 1, 2). The Report and Recommendation was then filed recommending that if the fee was paid that the Petition should be dismissed. (Docket No. 7). The Petitioner subsequently paid the applicable $5 filing fee for habeas petitions and the Petition was filed by the Clerk of Court. (Docket Nos. 10, 11). consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (Docket No. 7), which is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objections (Docket No. 9) are OVERRULED. To that end, Petitioner’s habeas claims assert Constitutional violations arising from his alleged lack of sufficient follow up and medical treatment after his prior hospitalization and appendectomy while he was incarcerated at FCC Petersburg and his later transfer to FCI Loretto. (See Docket No. 11). While the Court understands that he is not seeking compassionate release via the instant Petition, BOP staff noted in response to his BP-8 form that his prior requests for compassionate release were denied at the administrative level, (see Docket No. 11-2 at 2), and the Magistrate Judge pointed out that the sentencing court in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia previously denied two motions for compassionate release filed in that District, (Docket No. 7 at 1). As the Magistrate Judge stated, the law is well settled that this Court’s habeas jurisdiction is limited to considering true habeas petitions challenging the execution of a sentence (such as the computation of a sentence) while claims asserting Constitutional violations regarding medical care or conditions of confinement must be brought as a separate civil action. See Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533 (3d Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a prison conditions complaint filed as a habeas petition.). Hence, the instant Petition must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to submit a properly filed civil complaint in a new action. See id.; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (Docket No. 11) is DISMISSED, without prejudice to his bringing a properly filed civil complaint; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED; and, FINALLY, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Petitioner has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. s/Nora Barry Fischer Nora Barry Fischer Senior U.S. District Judge cc/ecf: Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto cc: TRACY WAYNE CROSBY BOP Reg. # 22363-021 LORETTO FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. BOX 1000 CRESSON, PA 16630 (via first class mail)