Kareem Muhammad v. D. Williams-Hubble

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 28, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-11586
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-00241-CV-TCB-1
KAREEM MUHAMMAD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
D. WILLIAMS-HUBBLE,
Education Supervisor,
L. WILLIAMS,
Education Literacy Coordinator,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(May 28, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 4 --

PER CURIAM:
Muhammad (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus
for wrongdoing by prison education Supervisor Williams-Hubble (“Respondent”)
and prison literacy coordinator Williams when Williams allegedly refused to
accept Petitioner’s high school diploma because of his religion. Construing
Petitioner’s pleading broadly, we conclude that he actually seeks relief under the
constitutional relief in a Bivens-type suit. Because Petitioner’s complaint and
attachments assert a plausible claim for denial of constitutional rights, we reverse
the district court’s dismissal.
In 2009, Petitioner submitted to Williams a copy of a high school diploma
earned while incarcerated in state prison. (Inmates with high school diplomas
might obtain a higher pay grade for work performed while in custody.) Williams
asked if Petitioner was a Muslim; and when Petitioner responded that he was,
Williams rejected the diploma and stated that Petitioner should change his religion.
Petitioner filed internal grievances with the prison, including Respondent, who told
him that whatever Williams says “is law.” The prison’s warden eventually
informed Petitioner that his diploma was unacceptable as it was not from an
“accredited traditional school.”
Petitioner sought a writ under 28 U.S.C. section 2241 as a “last resort.” He
2

-- 2 of 4 --

argued that Respondent had violated his Fifth Amendment due process clause and
equal protection rights insofar as he was treated differently than other similarly
situated persons.
The district court, adopting the Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate
Judge, dismissed Petitioner’s claim. It concluded that Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Rule 4") mandated dismissal because Petitioner
has no constitutional right to prison employment at a particular pay grade. And
because Petitioner had not alleged that other inmates’ degrees from similar
institutions had been accepted, his equal protection claim failed.
Despite filing his claim as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner is
not challenging the “fact or duration of his confinement,” nor any “terms and
conditions” of the confinement itself. See Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364
(1994) (defining the core of habeas corpus as challenges to the fact, duration, or
nature of confinement). Instead, Petitioner challenges a deprivation of his
constitutional rights by federal officers, a claim cognizable as a Bivens suit. See
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 91 S. Ct. 1999
(1971). Bivens permits “injured plaintiffs [to] bring a cause of action for damages
against federal officers based on violations of their constitutional rights,” much
like a 1983 suit permits claims against state officials. Behrens v. Regier, 422 F.3d
3

-- 3 of 4 --

1255, 1263 & n.15 (11th Cir. 2005). Construing his petition broadly, we conclude
that he alleges (what amounts to) a Bivens claim.
Here, Petitioner sets out claims for violations of his rights to due process and
equal protection. His complaint (which we, for now, must accept as true) alleges
that he complied with all prison requirements to have his diploma accepted and
that his diploma was rejected only because he is Muslim. If other similarly
situated prisoners had their diplomas accepted, Petitioner’s claim may have merit.
As such, the complaint does not “plainly [show] that petitioner is not entitled to
relief” and dismissal was improper. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for
further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --