Cooper v. NHSP Warden

2014 DNH 077

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: April 21, 2014
• Docket: 14-CV-084-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cooper v. NHSP Warden 14-CV-084-SM 4/21/14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Vincent Rashad Cooper

v. Case No. 14-cv-84-SM Opinion No. 2014 DNH 077 New Hampshire State Prison Warden

O R D E R

Petitioner, Vincent Rashad Cooper, has filed a petition for

habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that

defendants, New Hampshire State Prison and one of its

administrative hearing officers, deprived him of his federal

right to due process during the course of prison disciplinary

proceedings. Cooper’s petition is before the court for

preliminary review. See Rules 1(b) and 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. If “it

plainly appears . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to

relief in the district court,” the court “must dismiss the

petition.” Id. Rule 4.

Cooper alleges that defendants deprived him of due process

when they failed to abide by a prison regulation requiring that

he be given twenty-four hours advance notice of the date and time

of his disciplinary hearing. As relief for the alleged due

process violation, Cooper asks this court to “[d]ismiss all

disciplinary sanctions” imposed by the prison authorities following his hearing, specifically, “5 days punitive segregation

suspended for 90 days, 20 hrs extra duty, 15 hrs loss of

recreation, 15 days loss of canteen suspended for 90 days.”

Petition at 3.

Generally speaking, “habeas corpus proceedings are the

proper mechanism for challenging the ‘legality or duration’ of

confinement,” but not the “‘conditions of confinement.’” Crooker

v. Grondolsky, 2012 WL 5416422, at *1 (D. Mass. Nov. 1, 2012)

(citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-99 (1973)).

Given even a liberal reading, the petition here does not

plausibly challenge the legality or duration of Cooper’s

confinement. Rather, it describes what is, in substance, a claim

assertable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating to conditions of

confinement and a claim that is not likely viable in any event.

See Pratt v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corrections, 2007 WL 3342378,

at *9 (D.N.H. Nov. 7, 2007) (holding that because the punishment

- “additional hours of work duty and the loss of canteen and

recreation privileges for a few days” - was not “sufficiently

severe,” plaintiff failed to state a claim “that defendants

violated his constitutionally protected due process rights during

the course of the disciplinary proceedings.”) (citing Sandin v.

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)).

2 Accordingly, because Cooper plainly has not stated a

cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief, the petition

is dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

April 21, 2014

cc: Vincent R. Cooper, pro se