Opinion
23-cv-13029
06-13-2024
ALAN MICHAEL BARTLETT, Petitioner, v. ERIC RARDIN, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING (1) PETITIONER'S MOTION TO FILE AMENDED HABEAS PETITION (ECF No. 10)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Alan Michael Bartlett says that he is a federal inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He alleges that he is currently incarcerated at FCI Milan in Milan, Michigan. In 2018, Bartlett unsuccessfully sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. (See United States v. Bartlett, D. Alaska Case No. 13-44, ECF No. 553.) The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit thereafter denied him leave to file a successive Section 2255 motion. See Bartlett v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7663 (9th Cir. March 23, 2022); Bartlett v. United States, Case No. 23-386 (9th Cir. June 30, 2023).
In Bartlett's proposed amended habeas petition, he says that he is “currently confined at: FCI Milan.” (Proposed Am. Pet., ECF No. 11-1, PageID.129.) But it appears that Bartlett was actually released from his term of incarceration on December 4, 2023. A habeas petitioner who is on supervised release remains “in custody” for purposes of Section 2241. See, e.g., Faison v. Eichenlaub, 2008 WL 5422761, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 30, 2008) (rejecting argument that petitioner's Section 2241 petition was moot because petitioner had been released from custody and explaining that “if [p]etitioner's habeas claims were found meritorious by this Court, the length of his supervised release term would be shortened. Consequently, the Court finds that the petition is not rendered moot by [p]etitioner's release from incarceration where he is still serving a term of supervised release”); Hannah v. Marberry, 2006 WL 3694619, at ** 1-2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2006) (“[P]ersons on parole, probation, bail or supervised release may be ‘in custody' for purposes of [Section] 2241”).
On November 30, 2023, Bartlett filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (See Pet., ECF No. 1.) In the petition, Bartlett again sought relief from his convictions in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. (See id.) On June 4, 2024, the Court dismissed Bartlett's petition in a written order. (See Order, ECF No. 7.) As the Court explained in that order, Bartlett's claims are not cognizable under Section 2241. (See id.) The Court therefore dismissed Bartlett's petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Taylor v. Owens, 990 F.3d 493, 499-500 (6th Cir. 2021) (concluding that habeas petitioner had failed to show that “a section 2255 motion [was] inadequate or ineffective to challenge his sentence” and therefore directing district court to dismiss Section 2241 petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).
On June 11, 2024, Bartlett filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (See Proposed Am. Pet., ECF No. 10.) The Court will construe the amended petition as a motion for leave to file an amended petition and will DENY it. Simply put, Bartlett has not shown that the Court erred when it dismissed his Section 2241 petition. Nor has Bartlett shown that he has a right to challenge his convictions under Section 2241. Thus, because Bartlett has not persuaded the Court that it has subject-matter jurisdiction in this case, the Court declines to grant him leave to file an amended habeas petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.