Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-40163-GAO.
September 26, 2007
OPINION AND ORDER
The petitioner, Coy Phelps, is confined at the Federal Medical Center in Devens, Massachusetts ("FMC Devens"). In 1986 he was found not guilty only by reason of insanity in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on charges of possessing, manufacturing, and placing pipe bombs at five San Francisco locations, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) and (f), and 18 U.S.C. § 844(f) and (I). Subsequently, Phelps was civilly committed to the custody of the Attorney General following a hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4243 and 4247. Since that time, Phelps has been housed at and transferred between the FMCs in Springfield, Missouri; Rochester, Minnesota; and Butner, North Carolina, until his most recent transfer to FMC Devens in November, 2004.
On August 7, 2006, Phelps filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This petition is rather ambiguous and appears to be either a general challenge to his commitment to the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), as an civilly committed person rather than a "prisoner," under 18 U.S.C. § 4243, or a challenge to the basis of the decision to commit him. To the extent that Phelps' claim is the former, it is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a) because Phelps has already litigated this claim in other courts.See Phelps v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 62 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 1995); Phelps v. United States, 831 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1987). The Ninth Circuit held that § 4243 was not unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. See Phelps, 831 F.2d at 898. The Eight Circuit resolved Phelps' claim that civilly committed persons could not be committed to the custody of the Attorney General and, derivatively, the BOP, holding that a federal medical center is a "suitable facility" for Phelps within the meaning of §§ 4243 and 4247. See Phelps, 62 F.3d at 1023. Accordingly, I decline to entertain Phelps' recurrent claim that the BOP is not a "suitable facility" that can have lawful custody of a civilly committed person such as Phelps under 18 U.S.C. § 4243.
To the extent that Phelps' claim in this petition challenges the basis for the decision to commit him, this claim must be brought in the committing court. See 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h). Title Eighteen, U.S. Code, § 4247(h) states that Phelps may challenge his commitment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243 by filing "with the court that ordered the commitment a motion for a hearing to determine whether the person should be discharged from such facility. . . ." Accordingly, dismissal is proper and Phelps is free to commence a proper action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
For the foregoing reasons, the respondents' motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 5) is GRANTED. The respondents' motion to consolidate cases (dkt. no. 10) is therefore MOOT.
It is SO ORDERED.