United States District Court, D. Arizona
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.
J. Markovich United States Magistrate Judge.
before the Court is a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 1) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by
Anthony Moore (“Petitioner”), who is confined in
the United States Penitentiary in Tucson, Arizona.
initial matter, the Court notes that the proper respondent in
an action for habeas corpus is the Petitioner's
custodian. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rumsfeld
v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435-36 (2004). Petitioner
named the respondent in this action as “Warden Louis
Winn.” (Doc. 1). The Court takes judicial notice that
Louis W. Winn, Jr. is no longer warden of USP-Tucson. The
Court will substitute the new Warden of USP- Tucson, J. T.
Shartle, as Respondent pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure,
this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Markovich for a
Report and Recommendation. For the reasons discussed below,
it is recommended that the District Court dismiss the
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
is currently serving a 20-year North Dakota state sentence
for Gross Sexual Imposition. (Doc. 11 Ex. A ¶ 3). On
August 23, 2013, Petitioner was transferred from state
custody to federal custody pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 5003; his
projected release date is August 18, 2021. Id.
Petitioner has filed many civil actions while in both state
and federal custody. (Doc. 11 at 2). In fact, he previously
filed a § 2241 petition in the District of Arizona
(14-cv-1987-TUC-CKJ-EJM) raising similar arguments that he
makes in the instant petition. The District Court dismissed
the prior § 2241 petition in an Order dated June 4,
2014, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims
filed the instant § 2241 petition on September 24, 2014.
(Doc. 1). He claims that he was not allowed to attend a
Program Review meeting while housed in the Special Housing
Unit (SHU), and challenges his classification score.
Petitioner also asserts that he has exhausted his
administrative remedies with respect to both of these claims.
This Court does not reach the issue of exhaustion, because
the Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner's challenge
to the classification decisions made in his case. In fact,
this Court has previously considered this same issue raised
by the Petitioner regarding his classification, and concluded
that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the classification
courts are always ‘under an independent obligation to
examine their own jurisdiction, ' . . . and a federal
court may not entertain an action over which it has no
jurisdiction.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d
861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of
Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990), holding modified
by City of Littleton, Colo. v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C.,
541 U.S. 774 (2004)). “Generally, motions to contest
the legality of a sentence must be filed under § 2255 in
the sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the
manner, location, or conditions of a sentence's execution
must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial
court.” Id. at 864. Therefore, a proper
characterization of the petition is necessary to a
determination of jurisdiction. Id.
Ninth Circuit has made clear that jurisdiction over a
petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 exists in a
federal prison setting in three circumstances: (1) when a
prisoner “claims that he has been denied good time
credits without due process”; (2) when a prisoner
claims “that he has been subjected to greater
restrictions of his liberty, such as disciplinary
segregation, without due process”; and (3) when a
prisoner “seeks expungement of a disciplinary finding
from his record if expungement is likely to accelerate the
prisoner's eligibility for parole.” Bostic v.
Carlson, 884 F.3d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989),
overruled on other grounds by Nettles v. Grounds,
830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, a prisoner may only
utilize a § 2241 petition when he is challenging the
fact or duration of his custody with the traditional remedy
being immediate or sooner release from custody. Preiser
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973).
Petitioner has not raised claims challenging the fact or
duration of his confinement, but rather, whether he was able
to meet with his classification team and the accuracy of his
custodial classification. Thus, he has neither raised claims
implicating his due process or other constitutional rights,
nor has he demonstrated that he has been subjected to greater
restriction of his liberty, such as disciplinary segregation.
He also does not claim that the duration of his sentence has
been affected through the loss of good time credits. The
Ninth Circuit has held that “habeas jurisdiction is
absent . . . where a successful challenge to a prison
condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner's
sentence.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850,
859 (9th Cir. 2003). Therefore, even if Petitioner's
allegations about his custody classification were true, there
would be no impact on the fact or duration of his
incarceration. Accordingly, this Court recommends that the
District Court dismiss the instant § 2241 petition for
lack of jurisdiction.
reasons delineated above, the Magistrate Judge recommends
that the District Judge enter an order:
SUBSTITUTING J.T. Shartle, Warden, as Respondent for
“Louis Winn” pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 43(c)(2) ...