Phelps v. United States Of America

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/30/11. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

COY PHELPS,
Petitioner,
vs.

13
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
14
Respondent.
15

No. C 11-3211 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL;
GRANTING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

16
Petitioner, a federal insanity acquitee currently housed at Federal Medical Center in
17
Massachusetts, has filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
18
§ 2241 challenging the constitutionality of his custody. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma
19
pauperis is GRANTED.
20
BACKGROUND
21
Petitioner has had a lengthy relationship with the judicial system. In 1986, Petitioner was
22
found not guilty by reason of insanity for “possessing, manufacturing, and placing pipe bombs at
23
five San Francisco locations.” United States v. Phelps, 955 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)
24

(Phelps I). (Pet. at 3.) Thereafter, Petitioner was committed, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 42431, to

25
the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Missouri. Id.; United States v. Phelps,
26
27
28

1

Section 4243 governs the procedures for hospitalization and release of a person found
not guilty by reason of insanity.
Order of Dismissal; Granting In Forma Pauperis
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.11\Phelps211dis.ngi.wpd

1

283 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2002) (Phelps II). In 1999, Petitioner was ordered conditionally

2

released after a Court hearing. (Pet. at 6.) Petitioner filed several appeals in response to his

3

conditional release. Id. at 1180. In March 2001, Petitioner was arrested and re-committed. (Id.

4

at 10.)

5

On appeal from the 1999 and subsequent orders conditionally releasing Petitioner, in

6

Phelps II, the Ninth Circuit determined that, under 18 U.S.C. § 4243, the district court was

7

permitted to impose conditions upon release. Id. at 1182-83. However, the Ninth Circuit

8

analyzed the procedure actually used by the district court in conditionally releasing Petitioner,

9

and concluded that it did not adhere to the strict requirements of the statute. Id. at 1183-84.

10

Thus, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order granting conditional release. Id. The Ninth Circuit

11

directed the district court to order that Petitioner be re-hospitalized in conformity with its

12

opinion, although noted that future release proceedings were not barred. Id. at 1187.

13

On April 20, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28

14

U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the order revoking his original commitment, his conditional release

15

in 2001, and his re-commitment in 2001. Phelps v. United States, No. 10-1689 MHP (N.D. Cal.

16

Sept. 27, 2010). The Court noted that Petitioner had filed more than twenty federal cases

17

challenging his custody and not guilty by reason of insanity determination. Id. at 2. Ultimately,

18

the Court dismissed Petitioner’s petition in part as a second or successive petition, and because

19

his request for release under Section 4243 was inappropriate as a habeas action. Id. at 3-6.

20
21
22
23

On June 28, 2011, Petitioner filed the underlying action, and this case was assigned to the
undersigned judge.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner requests unconditional release from confinement challenging the conditions

24

and circumstances of his release concerning his commitment in 1999, his re-commitment in

25

2001, and the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 4243. Specifically, he claims that: (1) Section

26

4243 is unconstitutional as applied because he did not commit a crime; (2) there is no statutory

27

authority to confine him in a federal prison; (3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel at

28

his re-commitment hearing; and (4) several of the prior Court’s decisions violated statutory
Order of Dismissal; Granting In Forma Pauperis
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.11\Phelps211dis.ngi.wpd

2

1

authority.

2

Here, to the extent Petitioner challenges his original commitment, he cannot do so. See

3

Archuleta v. Hedrick, 365 F.3d 644, 648 (8th Cir. 2004) (“Archuleta may not collaterally attack

4

his decision to assert a successful insanity defense.”) (citing Curry v. Overholser, 287 F.2d 137,

5

179-40 (D.C. Cir. 1960). Moreover, because Petitioner is no longer in custody by reason of his

6

original commitment, but by reason of commitment orders entered thereafter, he is not entitled to

7

relief based on alleged errors in his original commitment.

8
9

Petitioner claims that there is no statutory authority for housing him in a federal prison
when he was not convicted of a crime. Petitioner is currently held at the Federal Medical Center

10

in Devens, Massachusetts. This facility “is an administrative facility housing male offenders

11

requiring specialized or long-term medical or mental health care.” Federal Bureau of Prisons,

12

http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/dev/index.jsp (last visited Aug. 23, 2011). There is no

13

merit to Petitioner’s conclusory allegation that such a federal facility is an inappropriate

14

placement for persons found not guilty by reason of insanity. See, e.g., Phelps v. United States

15

Bureau of Prisons, 62 F.3d 1020, 1023 (8th Cir. 1995) (affirming denial of “habeas motion” that

16

challenged the suitability of federal facility in which Petitioner was placed pursuant to Sections

17

4243 and 4247); cf. 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(2) (“suitable facility means a facility that is suitable to

18

provide care or treatment given the nature of the offense and the characteristics of the

19

defendant”).

20

Finally, much of Petitioner’s petition challenges the Court’s previous decisions which

21

occurred prior to, or were reversed by Phelps II. “Under the law-of-case doctrine, a court will

22

not reexamine an issue previously decided by the same or higher court in the same case.” Lucas

23

Auto. Eng’g, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 2001). To the

24

extent that Phelps II did not completely dispose of those claims, the proper vehicle to challenge

25

those decisions is by filing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit rather than through filing a new habeas

26

petition. See id. To the extent Petitioner alleges that he meets the standards for release under

27

Section 4243, a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is inapplicable. The statutes expressly

28

provide that the proper procedure is to file a motion under Section 4247(h). See Phelps II, 283
Order of Dismissal; Granting In Forma Pauperis
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.11\Phelps211dis.ngi.wpd

3

1

F.3d at 1183 n.8, 1187.

2

CONCLUSION

3

The instant habeas petition is DISMISSED. The clerk shall terminate any pending

4

motions and close the file.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: __8/30/11_____________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order of Dismissal; Granting In Forma Pauperis
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.11\Phelps211dis.ngi.wpd

4