Tyree A. Gregory v. J. GRONDOLSKY, Warden FCI Fort Dix

BLD-065 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-3579
___________
TYREE A. GREGORY,
Appellant
v.
J. GRONDOLSKY, Warden FCI Fort Dix
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 09-CV-00163)
District Judge: Honorable Renée Marie Bumb
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 3, 2009
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed:January 28, 2010)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Tyree A. Gregory appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, which dismissed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack
of jurisdiction. As the appeal presents no substantial issue, we will summarily affirm the
District Court’s judgment.

-- 1 of 3 --

Gregory complained of pre-trial detention conditions at three different correctional1
facilities, and alleged, inter alia, that he was forced to live in overcrowded and unsanitary
conditions, that he was stabbed with a homemade shank, that meals were inadequate and
unsafe, and that he was exposed to potentially life-threatening diseases from other
inmates.
2
Gregory’s petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, sought a credit against his
prison sentence at a 3:1 ratio for time served at correctional centers whose conditions, he
alleged, bordered on cruel and unusual punishment. The District Court determined that1
the relief Gregory sought was not available via a § 2241 petition, as Gregory was not
challenging the execution of his sentence, but was rather seeking a reduction or
modification of his sentence. The District Court noted that such relief was potentially
available only by way of motions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c). We agree.
As the District Court noted, a § 2241 petition is the proper means for a federal
prisoner to challenge the execution of his sentence. Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485-
86 (3d Cir. 2001). A federal prisoner may challenge, for example, such matters as the
administration of parole, computation of his sentence by prison officials, prison
disciplinary actions, prison transfers, type of detention or prison conditions by way of a
§ 2241 petition. Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2005).
Here, Gregory was not challenging the execution of his sentence; e.g., the computation of
the sentence that was imposed for his criminal conviction, or the conditions of his current
imprisonment. Instead, he was asking the District Court to modify the sentence originally

-- 2 of 3 --

We express no opinion as to whether Gregory could meet the procedural2
prerequisites for either of these forms of relief, nor whether such motions would be found
to have merit.
3
imposed to reflect a credit based on conditions in his places of pretrial confinement. We
agree with the District Court that the only potential vehicles for relief would be a motion
to correct the sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, or a motion to reduce the
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 filed with the sentencing court.2
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

-- 3 of 3 --