Kabil Anton Djenasevic v. Steve Langford

Filing 9

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1 by Judge Dolly M. Gee. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner's right to file a separate civil rights action challenging the conditions of his confinement at USP Lompoc. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (kl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

KABIL ANTON DJENASEVIC,
Petitioner,

13
v.

14
15

STEVE LANGFORD,
Respondent.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 16-9092-DMG (JEM)
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS

On December 8, 2016, Kabil Anton Djenasevic (“Petitioner”), a prisoner in federal

18

custody proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

19

2241 (“Petition”). Petitioner is presently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in

20

Lompoc, California (“USP Lompoc”).1 He claims that the medical staff at USP Lompoc

21
22
1

23
24
25
26
27
28

A federal jury in the Middle District of Florida found Petitioner guilty of one count of
conspiracy with intent to distribute and to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin (21
U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A)(i)) (Count One), two counts of distributing heroin (21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C)) (Counts Two and Three), one count of possession with
intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(i))
(Count Four), and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§
922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2)) (Count Five). United States v. Kabil Anton Djenasevic, 8:02-cr004240JDW-MAP (M.D. Fla.), Docket No. 393 at 1. He was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of 292 months on Counts One and Four, 240 months on Counts Two and
Three, and 120 months on Count Five, all terms to run concurrently. Id. at 2. His currently
scheduled release date is February 15, 2024. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/.

1

“refuses to properly treat my medical needs” and are “falsely manipulating my efforts to

2

effective medical care.” (Petition at 3.) Petitioner further claims that he is not receiving

3

proper dental care at USP Lompoc. (Id.)

4

As set forth more fully below, Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on federal

5

habeas review. Accordingly, the Petition should be dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner

6

refiling his claims in a civil rights action.

7
8
9

DISCUSSION
In general, claims challenging the fact or duration of a prisoner's confinement should
be presented in a habeas corpus petition, while claims challenging the conditions of

10

confinement should be presented in a civil rights action. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S.

11

74, 78-82 (2005); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554 (1974); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

12

U.S. 475, 499-500 (1973). Claims challenging the execution of a sentence are cognizable

13

under § 2241 if there is a “causal link” between the execution of the petitioner's sentence

14

and the “fact or duration” of his or her custody. See Benny v. United States Parole Com'n,

15

295 F.3d 977, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that a § 2241 habeas corpus petition is the

16

appropriate vehicle for an inmate's challenge to “the execution of a criminal sentence on

17

grounds that a prisoner ‘is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

18

United States’”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (3) and citing Benites v. United States Parole

19

Comm'n, 595 F.2d 518, 520 n.1 (9th Cir. 1979)). Where “a successful challenge to a prison

20

condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner's sentence,” however, “habeas jurisdiction

21

is absent, and a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 [or Bivens] action [is] proper . . . .” Ramirez v. Galaza,

22

334 F.3d 850, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2003).

23

Petitioner's complaints about the inadequate medical and dental care at FCC

24

Lompoc do not implicate the fact or duration of his confinement. That is, a judgment in his

25

favor would not undermine the validity of his conviction or otherwise accelerate his release

26

from custody. See Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 859. At best, a favorable judgment would alter the

27

conditions under which he is confined. Because Petitioner's claim properly is construed as

28

one challenging the conditions of his confinement, it is cognizable, if at all, as a civil rights
2

1

claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

2

388, 397 (1971). Accordingly, the Petition should be dismissed without prejudice to

3

Petitioner's right to file a separate civil rights action challenging the conditions of his

4

confinement. See Greenhill v. Lappin, 376 F. App’x 757, 757-58 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding

5

that the appropriate remedy for a federal prisoner's claim that relates to the conditions of his

6

confinement is a civil rights action under Bivens); see also Crumpton v. Fox, 2014 WL

7

4829054, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2014) (dismissing claims for designation to a medical

8

facility and inadequate medical care brought in a § 2241 petition because those claims did

9

not affect the fact or duration of the petitioner’s confinement); Izac v. Unknown Warden,

10

2014 WL 1794452, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2014) (dismissing a § 2241 petition that raised

11

claims for inadequate medical care, unhealthy prison conditions, and prison transfers

12

because those claims did not affect the fact or duration of the petitioner's confinement, and

13

declining to convert the petition to a Bivens action).

14

ORDER

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice to

16

Petitioner’s right to file a separate civil rights action challenging the conditions of his

17

confinement at USP Lompoc.

18
19
20

DATED: January 20, 2017
DO
DOLLY M. GEE
DOLLY
E
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NITED STATES
TA

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3