Opinion
2:22-cv-01239-JAD-VCF
08-16-2022
Fan Zhao Xin, Petitioner v. James Billingsley, Residential Reentry Manager, Federal Bureau of Prisons,[1] Respondent
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE TO PETITION BY SEPTEMBER 15, 2022
Petitioner Fan Zhao Xin is a federal prisoner who filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Central District of California transferred the petition to this district based on findings that jurisdiction did not exist in the Central District of California and that transfer, rather than dismissal, was in the interest of justice. Having reviewed the petition, I direct the Clerk of Court to serve it on the U.S. Attorney for this district and I order the government to respond to the petition by September 15, 2022.
The transfer order is filed herein at ECF No. 9. Absent citation to another source, the factual information in this order is taken from that order.
Xin was convicted of a federal narcotics offense in the District of Nevada and sentenced to 60 months in custody. He served the bulk of that sentence at the Terminal Island facility in California. But when he filed his § 2241 petition, he had been released from Terminal Island and placed on home detention in Las Vegas, Nevada. For that reason, the Central District of California determined that Xin had filed his petition in the wrong district.
Habeas petitions under § 2241 are subject to the screening requirements that apply to § 2254 petitions. In his petition, Xin alleges that he is eligible for credits under the First Step Act that would shorten or terminate his sentence. He claims that he has participated in the necessary programs and notes that the Act's implementation date of January 15, 2022, has passed. In responding to the petition in the Central District of California, the government acknowledged that habeas corpus relief under § 2241 “is the correct mechanism to challenge the custodial time credits [petitioner] has or has not received.”
See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (“Habeas Rules”), Habeas Rule 1(b) (stating that “[t]he district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by” § 2254).
First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018).
ECF No. 1 at 3-4.
ECF No. 5 at 5.
I conclude that the petition alleges facts that may serve as a basis for finding that the petitioner has been deprived of First Step Act credits to which he may be entitled. Xin also alleges that his case manager has denied him access to the administrative-remedy process. In light of these circumstances and the Central District of California's decision to transfer (rather than dismiss) this case, I conclude that the habeas petition warrants further response from the government.
See Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognizing possible exceptions to the general rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to:
• SUBSTITUTE James Billingsley, the Residential Reentry Manager at RRM Phoenix, for Warden J. Engleman as the respondent in this case;
• SERVE the copies of the petition (ECF No. 1) and this order on the U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada; and
• PROVIDE the United States Attorney an electronic copy of all items previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to the office of the U.S. Attorney only.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the assigned Assistant U.S. Attorney must file a notice of appearance by August 30, 2022, and the government must file a response to the petition by September 15, 2022. Petitioner Xin will then have 30 days from service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition.