Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jayne v. Unknown Rhodes

United States District Court, D. Arizona

May 13, 2019

Michael Jayne, Petitioner,
Unknown Rhodes, et al., Defendants.



         Before the Court is an Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Petition). (Doc. 8.) At the time he filed his Petition, Petitioner Michael Jayne (Petitioner) was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Tucson, Arizona (USP Tucson) in service of a 120-month term of imprisonment after having pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession of a firearm). As explained below, this Court recommends that the Petition be denied.


         On September 28, 2018, the district court required Respondent to answer Petitioner's custody level classification claims in Grounds One and Two and his Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) claim in Ground Four of the Petition. (Doc. 9 at p. 1.) Petitioner's remaining claims were dismissed. Id. On November 26, 2018, Respondent filed his Return and Answer. (Doc. 14.) Respondent argues the Petition should be dismissed because Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the district court lacks habeas jurisdiction over Petitioner's custody classification claims and Petitioner's IAD claim is moot. (Doc. 14 at pp. 6-10.)

         On January 22, 2019, Petitioner filed a Notice of Change of Address, Request for Extension of Time to Reply to Respondents (sic) Response stating that on December 17, 2018 he was transferred to USP Lewisburg in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 18 at pp. 1-2.) Petitioner asks the Court to order the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide him with his legal property that he claims is in the possession of “Lewisburg R & D property room staff.” Id. at p. 2.

         Petitioner argues the crux of his habeas claim is that he is improperly classified as having a total of 24 criminal history points and, as a result, he is housed as a maximum-security inmate. Petitioner argues he should be classified as having 23 criminal history points and he should be housed as a medium-security inmate. He claims that his custody classification level is miscalculated because a prior felony conviction that was previously scored has been vacated. Petitioner admits he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he believes his custody level classification claims are beyond the scope of the administrative remedies program. He also argues it would be futile for him to submit administrative grievances on his claims because he is time barred from doing so. Id. at pp. 3-4.



         Named as Respondent is the warden of USP Tucson at the time Petitioner filed his Petition. Petitioner is now housed in USP Lewisburg. The warden of USP Lewisburg should be substituted in as the correct Respondent under Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d). Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004) (in a habeas challenge, “the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held …”); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973) (“The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody.”).


         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be brought in the district court where the petitioner is confined or in the district where he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Venue was proper in the District of Arizona at time this action was filed. Although Petitioner has been transferred to USP Lewisburg, located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the district court may continue to exercise jurisdiction over this action notwithstanding Petitioner's transfer. See Dunne v. Langford, 2017 WL 132109, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017) (citing Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353, 354 (9th Cir. 1990) (“‘[J]urisdiction attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it is not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial change'”). Because Petitioner is now incarcerated in USP Lewisburg venue is appropriate in the Middle District of Pennsylvania because Petitioner and his immediate custodian are in that district. However, because this Court recommends the Petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction transfer of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is not recommended.

         The District Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Petitioner's Claims In Grounds One and Two

         A petitioner is entitled to habeas corpus relief if he shows that he is in custody under the authority of the United States and his custody violates the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A federal prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of the execution of a sentence must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hoslett v. Thomas, 2012 WL 3990446, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2000)).

         A district court has jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition if a prisoner is challenging the legality of the “manner, location, or conditions of the execution of a sentence, ” see Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864, and when a successful challenge to those prison conditions would accelerate the prisoner's release. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Preiser v Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487 (1973) (immediate or accelerated release from illegal custody is the essence of habeas corpus). Claims which pertain to a prisoner's classifications, especially individual custodial classification scores, are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition. See Estrada v. Chavez, 2009 WL 1383328, at *5 (D. Ariz. May 15, 2009) (prisoner's challenge to the P.S. 5100.08 scorecard did not affect the execution of his sentence and, therefore, the court lacked habeas jurisdiction over those claims under § 2241); Bride v. McClintock, 2015 WL 150241, at *3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 12, 2015) (relying upon Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2011) in determining the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear § 2241 petition where petitioner was challenging the BOP's application of PS 5100.08 in determining petitioner's security classification); Franklin v. Gipson, 2013 WL 1339545 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2013) (court lacked jurisdiction to hear habeas petition challenge to classification because the prisoner ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.