Opinion
Case No. C06-0160-JLR.
February 27, 2006
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner is a prisoner at the Ely State Prison in Ely, Nevada. He has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner identifies his 1987 Snohomish Superior Court convictions on charges of first degree kidnaping and escape as the convictions under attack in the instant federal habeas action. However, petitioner asserts in his petition, and in his supporting memorandum, that he is not seeking to challenge his convictions. Rather, petitioner asserts, he is seeking to challenge Washington State statute of limitations and speedy trial provisions as they are applied to Washington prisoners who are housed outside the State pursuant to the Western Interstate Corrections Compact, RCW 72.70.010, or the Interstate Corrections Compact, RCW 72.74.020.
Petitioner indicates in his petition that he is currently a "Compact Boarder" in the State of Nevada.
Despite petitioner's assertion that he is not seeking to challenge his 1987 Snohomish County Superior Court convictions in these proceedings, there is no other reasonable way to construe the instant petition. If petitioner were to prevail on the claims raised in the instant petition, it would undermine the validity of the Snohomish County judgment and sentence pursuant to which he is currently incarcerated. The Ninth Circuit has held that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive avenue for a state court prisoner to challenge the constitutionality of his detention. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, petitioner's § 2241 petition is properly construed as one brought pursuant to § 2254.
A review of this court's records reveals that this is the second federal habeas petition filed by petitioner in recent months challenging the same Snohomish County convictions. See Carmichael v. Washington, Case No. C05-2076-RSM-MAT. Petitioner filed both petitions under § 2241. An Order was recently issued in Case No. C05-2076-RSM-MAT construing the petition filed therein as one filed pursuant to § 2254, and granting petitioner leave to amend the petition to name a proper respondent.
Given that petitioner currently has a § 2254 action proceeding in this Court with respect to his 1987 Snohomish County convictions, the instant action is duplicative. Allowing plaintiff to proceed with both actions at the same time would be inefficient and would violate the limit of one habeas petition per conviction imposed by Congress. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244. If petitioner wishes to pursue the claims set forth in the instant habeas petition, he may do so by simply amending his petition in his other cause number, C05-2076-RSM-MAT.
Accordingly, the instant habeas action is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to petitioner and to the Honorable Mary Alice Theiler.