Opinion
CV-21-0832-PHX-ROS (DMF)
01-31-2022
Chrystalyn House, Petitioner, v. Unknown Party, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE DEBORAH M. FIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner Chrystalyn House (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1) and paid the filing fee (Doc. 2). The Petition names the Warden of Central Arizona Florence Correctional Complex (CAFCC) in the District of Arizona as Respondent and raises two grounds for relief (Doc. 1). The envelope in which the Petition was sent to the Court reflects a postmark on May 5, 2021, from Los Angeles, California despite the return address listed as CAFCC (Doc. 1-1). The Petition was received for filing by the Clerk of Court of the District of Arizona on May 10, 2021 (Doc. 1; Doc. 1-1).
Petitioner refers to this facility as “CCF” (Doc. 1 at 1, 2).
In Petition Ground One, Petitioner claims that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) miscalculated her pre-trial and post-trial jail credits and is thereby detaining her unlawfully (Id. at 3-4). In Petition Ground Two, Petitioner claims that she has been unlawfully prevented from participating in the BOP's Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”) (Id.). Petitioner's incarceration results from a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Id. at 2).
The Court required an answer to both Grounds One and Two of the Petition (Doc. 3). This matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and recommendation (Doc. 3 at 3).
Respondent filed a timely Answer requesting that the Court dismiss the Petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, deny the Petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and because the claims fail on the merits (Doc. 10). Service of the Answer upon Petitioner was accomplished after Petitioner's transfer to a BOP facility in Minnesota, and Petitioner was subsequently granted extensions of time to file her reply (Docs. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17). Petitioner did not file a reply, and the time to do so expired months ago (Doc. 16).
Because, as set forth below, the undersigned finds that this Court lacks jurisdiction, it is recommended that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice.
II. JURISDICTION
A habeas petition challenging the “manner, location or condition of a sentence's execution” must be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). Petitioner's challenge to BOP's sentence calculation is a challenge to the “manner, location, or condition” of the execution of her sentence and is properly brought under § 2241.
Federal courts always have an obligation to examine their own jurisdiction, and a “federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction.” Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 865. “[P]etitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence's execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court.” Id. at 864 (emphasis added). See also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004).
Petitioner names the Warden of CAFCC in the District of Arizona as Respondent in this matter and filed this action in the District of Arizona. Nevertheless, at the time that the Petition was mailed on May 5, 2021, and when the Petition was filed on May 10, 2021, Petitioner was housed in Los Angeles, California in the Central District of California. See Doc. 1; Doc. 1-1 (postmark dated May 5, 2021); Eber Declaration Doc. 10-2 ¶ 9 (“Since May 3, 2021, Petitioner has been housed at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, California (MDC LA)”); see also Doc. 10-2 at 7. Because Petitioner was housed at MDC LA in the Central District of California, not at CAFCC in the District of Arizona, at the time the Petition was mailed and filed, the Warden of MDC LA in the Central District of California was her immediate custodian at the time of the filing of the Petition and is the only proper respondent in this case. For the above reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
The form used for the Petition has “District of Arizona” written in the heading, but the instructions on the first page of the form reveal that the form used for the Petition was a Central District of California form: “When the petition is completed, the original and 3 copies must be mailed to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Edward R. Roybal Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 255 E Temple Street, Suite TS-134, Los Angeles, California 90012, ATTENTION: Intake/Docket Section.” (Doc. 1 at 1). Like the postmark on the envelope and the affidavit submitted by the Government, this undermines Petitioner's unsupported assertion that she “filed this writ while in Arizona” (Doc. 15).
Petitioner was temporarily housed in the District of Arizona for a few months in early 2021 before her transfer to and arrival at the Central District of California on May 3, 2021, after which the Petition was filed (Doc. 10-2 at 7; see also Eber Declaration Doc. 10-2 ¶ 9). The Petition envelope (Doc. 1-1) and the documentation provided by Respondent (Doc. 10-2 at 7; see also Eber Declaration Doc. 10-2 ¶ 9) contravene Petitioner's unsupported assertion that her move from the District of Arizona to the Central District of California was “out of retaliation, to moot out the writ” (Doc. 15). After the filing of the Petition, Petitioner was moved from California to Minnesota (Doc. 11), which is not pertinent to whether there is jurisdiction in the District of Arizona. See Johnson v. Gill, 883 F.3d 756, 761 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353, 354 (9th Cir. 1990)) (if habeas jurisdiction was proper when an inmate filed his petition, the inmate's subsequent transfer does not destroy the jurisdiction established at the time of filing).
Given that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Petitioner's action, the Court has two options. The Court can dismiss the Petition without prejudice so that Petitioner can refile the Petition in the current district of her confinement, District of Minnesota, naming as respondent the warden of the FCI facility in which she is housed.
Alternatively, “if a court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction the court shall transfer the action to any other such court in which the action could have been brought if it is in the interest of justice.” Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted). Respondent asserts that the showing in Respondent's Answer that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this case based on failure to administratively exhaustand failure on the merits of the claims, demonstrates that transfer of this matter would be futile and not in the interest of justice (Doc. 10 at 6).
“While in Bureau custody, Petitioner has never filed an administrative remedy regarding sentence calculation, prior custody credits, or participation in the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP)” (Eber Declaration Doc. 10-2 ¶ 11; see Eber Declaration Doc. 10-2 ¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 10). Because a transferee court would likely dismiss the Petition for failure to exhaust, transfer is not in the interest of justice.
There is an additional and compelling reason that the matter should be dismissed in favor of Petitioner refiling, if she so chooses, in her current district of confinement rather than transferring the case to another district. Petitioner is no longer housed in the Central District of California, but has been housed in the District of Minnesota since at least July 2021 (Doc. 11). Further, Petitioner's service of her sentence of 36 months of incarceration imposed by the District Court for the Central District of California (Doc. 10-1 at 39) began on January 11, 2021, with eleven days of credit (Hassler Declaration Doc. 10-1 ¶¶ 10, 11, 12). It appears that sufficient time remains to be served on Petitioner's sentence for Petitioner to make efforts to exhaust administrative remedies, as applicable, and pursue her rights in the district where she is currently incarcerated. If Petitioner files a petition in her district of incarceration, the petition may be addressed by the court in her district of incarceration even if Petitioner is transferred after filing. See Johnson, 883 F.3d at 761. In sum, it is not in the interest of justice to transfer this matter to another district rather than dismiss it without prejudice.
Petitioner was temporarily housed in the Central District of California at the time of the mailing and filing of the Petition. See Doc. 10-2 at 7.
For the reasons above, it is recommended that the Court dismiss the Petition without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Respondent's other arguments (failure to administratively exhaust and failure on the merits) are not otherwise addressed herein because this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter.
Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1) be dismissed without prejudice and that this matter be closed.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, 72. The parties shall have fourteen days within which to file responses to any objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.