Amsden v. Ebbert et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Kyle Ray Amsden Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 2/21/14. (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 2 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 3 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 4 Unpublished Opinion(s))(bs)
Page 1
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 2470122 (C.D.Cal.)
(Cite as: 2011 WL 2470122 (C.D.Cal.))
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court,
C.D. California.
Benjamin SCHWARZ, Petitioner,
v.
Erwin MEINBERG, Warden, Respondent.
No. ED CV 10–1728 MMM (FMO).
May 31, 2011.
Benjamin Schwarz, Youngstown, OH, pro se.
Daniel Ackerman, United States Attorney's Office
Riverside Branch Office, Riverside, CA, for Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
MARGARET M. MORROW, District Judge.
*1 On June 23, 2010, Benjamin Schwarz
(“petitioner”) received a 90–month federal sentence,
followed by five years of supervised release, for
possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. (See Declaration of Sarah
Schuh (“Schuh Decl.”) at ¶ 4 & Exh. A). At the time he
commenced this action, petitioner was a federal prisoner
incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los
Angeles, California (“MDC”).FN1 (See Petition at 1–2).
FN1. Petitioner was incarcerated at the MDC
from August 11, 2009, to October 20, 2010. (See
Schuh Decl. at ¶ 5). Petitioner is currently
incarcerated at the Northeast Ohio Correctional
Center in Youngstown, Ohio. (See Notice of
Change of Address, filed on March 14, 2011).
On September 1, 2010, petitioner, proceeding pro se,
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Prior
Petition”), in this Court, Benjamin Schwarz v. Erwin
Meinberg, Warden, Case No. ED CV 10–1320 MMM
(FMO), raising the following claims for federal habeas
relief: (1) the federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
discriminated against petitioner because of his nationality
by refusing to designate him to a “prison camp[;]” and (2)
the conditions at the MDC are unsanitary and inhumane,
in violation of the Eighth Amendment.FN2 (See Court's
Order of October 6, 2010, at 1, Benjamin Schwarz v.
Erwin Meinberg, Warden, Case No. ED CV 10–1320
MMM (FMO)). On October 6, 2010, the Court dismissed
the Prior Petition without prejudice to allow petitioner to
file a new action after he exhausted his administrative
remedies. (See id. at 1 & 4; Judgment, Benjamin Schwarz
v. Erwin Meinberg, Warden, Case No. ED CV 10–1320
MMM (FMO)).
FN2. The Court takes judicial notice of the files
and records in Benjamin Schwarz v. Erwin
Meinberg, Warden, Case No. ED CV 10–1320
MMM (FMO). See United States v. Wilson, 631
F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir.1980) ( “In particular, a
court may take judicial notice of its own records
in other cases, as well as the records of an
inferior court in other cases.”); accord United
States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n. 1 (9th
Cir.2004).
On November 8, 2010, petitioner, proceeding pro se,
filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in Federal Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Petition on December 4, 2010 (“Motion”). Petitioner filed
an Opposition to the Motion (“Opposition”) on March 10,
2011. Respondent filed a Reply to the Opposition on
March 21, 2011. On May 13, 2011, petitioner filed a
“Declaration and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
in Response to Respondent's Reply on Respondent's Mo
[ti]on to Dismiss, Based on Failure of Prudential
Exhaustion; Request for Permission to File this Response”
(“Sur–Reply”).
DISCUSSION
The instant Petition raises, in essence, the same
claims that petitioner raised in the Prior Petition: (1) the
© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 2
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 2470122 (C.D.Cal.)
(Cite as: 2011 WL 2470122 (C.D.Cal.))
BOP refuses to designate petitioner to a “BOP camp”
because of his Canadian citizenship; and (2) the conditions
of the cells at the MDC, specifically with respect to the
toilets, are unsanitary, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. (See Petition at 3).
Respondent contends that the Petition should be dismissed
because petitioner has not fully exhausted his
administrative remedies and the Petition fails to state a
cognizable habeas claim. (See Motion at 3 & 4–8). Under
the circumstances, the Court does not need to determine
whether petitioner properly exhausted his federal
administrative remedies with respect to the two claims
raised in the instant Petition because, even assuming
petitioner had exhausted his administrative remedies, the
Petition fails to state cognizable habeas claims.FN3
FN3. Notably, petitioner does not address
respondent's argument regarding his failure to
raise cognizable federal habeas claims. (See,
generally, Opposition at 1–19; Sur–Reply at
1–8).
*2 It is well-settled that claims relating to the
conditions of a prisoner's confinement are not cognizable
on federal habeas review. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Galaza,
334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S.
1063, 124 S.Ct. 2388, 158 L.Ed.2d 963 (2004) (“[H]abeas
jurisdiction is proper where a challenge to prison
conditions would, if successful, necessarily accelerate the
prisoner's release .... [H]abeas jurisdiction is absent ...
where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not
necessarily shorten the prisoner's sentence.”); Early v.
Quintana, 2010 WL 5829211, at *3 n. 1 (C.D.Cal.2010),
report and recommendation adopted by 2011 WL 662710
(C.D.Cal.2011) (“To the extent that petitioner ... is
attempting to raise conditions of confinement claims ...,
the Court is unable to consider such claims because they
are not cognizable on habeas review.”). Similarly, claims
relating to an inmate's custody classification and/or
designation to prison camp are also not cognizable. See, e
.g., Levi v. Ebbert, 2009 WL 2169171, at *8 (M.D.Pa.),
aff'd, 353 F.App'x 681 (3d Cir.2009) (district court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over the petitioner's habeas
claims regarding his custody classification and federal
camp or low security prison eligibility because “they are
not cognizable in a § 2241 habeas petition[,]” i.e., “they
do not affect the length of his sentence and will not result
in a quicker release of Petitioner from prison than his
[projected] release date [ ]”); Estrada v. Chavez, 2009 WL
1383328, at *4–5 (D.Ariz.2009) (finding that petitioner
did not challenge the execution of his sentence where
petitioner argued that “the application of Program
Statement 5100.08 to classify [him] as a Medium Security
inmate violate[d] the Due Process Clause [ ]” and sought
an order directing the BOP to reclassify him as a low
security inmate and determine if he qualified for a transfer
to a lower-security institution, because “[e]ven if th[e
c]ourt concluded that Petitioner's disciplinary infractions
were erroneous or that his custody level was inaccurately
calculated, at most, that would impact the security level of
the institution at which [he] would be eligible to serve his
term of imprisonment and to which he could be
transferred. The length of his sentence would not
change[.]”).FN4 In short, petitioner's claims relating to the
conditions of his confinement at the MDC and the BOP's
refusal to designate him to a prison camp, (see Petition at
3), are not cognizable on federal habeas review as they do
not challenge the duration of his confinement.
FN4. In denying petitioner's Administrative
Remedy Request for designation to a “BOP
Camp,” the Warden of the MDC stated:
[A]s a citizen of Canada, the Designations and
Sentence Computation Center (DSCC), Grand
Prairie, Texas, designated you to the Northeast
Ohio Correctional Center, based on your
Public Safety Factor of Alien. In accordance
with Program Statement 5100.08, Inmate
Security Designation and Custody
Classification Manual, “A male or female
inmate who is not a citizen of the United States
will have the PSF of Alien applied. When
applied, the inmate or the long-term detainee
shall be housed in at least a Low security level
institution.” As you are not a citizen of the
United States, the PSF of Alien is appropriate,
as is your designation to the Northeast Ohio
Correctional Center.
(Schuh Decl., Exh. E at 23; see also id., Exh.
E at 22 & 24–25).
© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 3
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 2470122 (C.D.Cal.)
(Cite as: 2011 WL 2470122 (C.D.Cal.))
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Document No.
6
)
i
s
granted.
2. Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without
prejudice.
C.D.Cal.,2011.
Schwarz v. Meinberg
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 2470122 (C.D.Cal.)
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
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?