(HC) Dugger v. Brewer

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 1/13/2023 ORDERING that Petitioner may file an amended 2241 petition within 30 days of this order's entry. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send petitioner a federal 2241 habeas form with this order. (Huang, H)

Download PDF
Case 2:22-cv-02142-JDP Document 4 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY DUGGER, 12 13 14 Petitioner, ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE SECTION 2241 CLAIM AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS Respondent. ECF No. 1 v. D. BREWER, 15 Case No. 2:22-cv-02142-JDP (HC) 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. After reviewing the petition, I find that it fails to state a viable claim. I 19 will give petitioner a chance to amend before recommending that this action be dismissed. 20 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 21 Section 2254 Cases.1 Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 22 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 23 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 24 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 25 Petitioner’s sole claim is that three points were unlawfully added to his custody 26 classification. ECF No. 1 at 3. Claims related solely to an inmate’s Bureau of Prisons custody 27 28 1 This rule may be applied to petitions brought under § 2241. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 1 Case 2:22-cv-02142-JDP Document 4 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2 1 classification are not cognizable by way of a § 2241 action, however. See, e.g., Strausbaugh v. 2 Shartle, CV-15-398-TUC-JAS (JR), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55900, *9 (D. Ariz. April 11, 2017) 3 (“Claims that merely challenge a petitioner’s classification by the BOP without potentially 4 shortening the petitioner’s sentence are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition.”); Parada v. 5 Martinez, No. CV 19-4405 JAK (MRW), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163574, *4-5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6 24, 2019) (“[T]he Court cannot adjudicate Petitioner's contention that the BOP has misclassified 7 him for prison housing or program purposes. A challenge to the conditions of his confinement 8 rather than the legality of his confinement [ ] is not cognizable on habeas corpus review.”) 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The matter might be different if this classification were 10 potentially to impact the length of petitioner’s sentence, but the petition does not, as best as I can 11 tell, indicate that this is the case. 12 13 Petitioner may, if he chooses, file an amended petition that addresses this deficiency. If he does not, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 14 It is ORDERED that: 15 1. Petitioner may file an amended § 2241 petition within thirty days of this order’s 16 entry. If he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons 17 stated in this order. 18 2. 19 this order. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal § 2241 habeas form with 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: 23 24 January 13, 2023 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?