Anaya v. Campos

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 31, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00029
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL RIVERA ANAYA Case No.: 24cv29-JES (DDL)

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 14 R. CAMPOS, et. al., OF HABEAS CORPUS;

(2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 16 TO PROCEED IN FORMA Respondents. 17 PAUPERIS; and

18 (3) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 19 FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

20 [ECF Nos. 1, 2, 6] 21 Before the Court is Petitioner Daniel Rivera Anaya’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 22 Corpus, Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and motion for 23 appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 1, 2, 6. After due consideration and for the reasons 24 below, the Court DENIES the petition, DENIES AS MOOT the motion to proceed IFP, 25 and DENIES AS MOOT the motion to appoint counsel. 26 I. BACKGROUND 27 Petitioner is a federal pretrial detainee, who is currently detained in federal custody 28 1 while he awaits trial in his criminal case, United States v. Rivera-Anaya, Case No. 2 23cr1984-JES. ECF No. 1 at 2. Petitioner was arrested on September 11, 2023, as he 3 attempted to enter the United States, and was charged with Attempted Reentry after 4 Deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Case No. 23cr1984, ECF No. 1. He was 5 indicted on September 26, 2023, and the Court set a motion hearing/trial setting hearing 6 on October 23, 2023. Case No. 23cr1984, ECF Nos. 10, 12. Petitioner filed various 7 pretrial motions in this criminal case (see Case No. 23cr1984, ECF Nos. 15-18), and after 8 a continuance, the Court held a motion hearing on November 20, 2023. Case No. 9 23cr1984, ECF No. 25. At that hearing, the Court granted a continuance for the hearing 10 date on the motions to January 22, 2024. Id. The case was subsequently assigned to the 11 undersigned, and the hearing date reset to January 26, 2024. Case No. 23cr1984, ECF 28. 12 During the meantime, on January 3, 2024, Petitioner filed this civil case under 28 13 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. He filed a concurrent motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 14 and later filed a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 2, 6. His petition raises 15 three grounds for relief: (1) that his Miranda rights were violated during his arrest; (2) 16 that his current pretrial detention violates his right to a speedy trial; and (3) that his 17 indictment in his criminal case is fatally flawed. ECF No. 1. On May 17, 2024, the case 18 was assigned from its previous judge to the undersigned. ECF No. 9. Three days later, on 19 May 20, 2024, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, arguing that this Court has been 20 unresponsive to his petition. ECF No. 10. 21 As this petition for writ of habeas corpus remained pending, Petitioner’s criminal 22 case proceeded. On January 22, 2024, Petitioner was appointed new counsel, and he 23 requested a continuance on motions hearing for new counsel to prepare the case. Case 24 No. 23cr1984, ECF Nos. 34-35. The Court granted the continuance request and reset the 25 hearing from January 26 to March 8. Case No. 23cr1984, ECF No. 36. 26 On March 8, 2024, the Court held the motions hearing. At that hearing, the Court 27 set a further hearing date for motions in limine and a trial date. Case No. 23cr1984, ECF 28 No. 37. Petitioner filed another continuance request, which the Court also granted. Case 1 No. 23cr1984, ECF Nos. 39-40. Petitioner then requested a competency hearing, which 2 the Court held on April 26, 2024. Case No. 23cr1984, ECF Nos. 41-42. Petitioner 3 subsequently filed a Notice of Insanity Defense on May 3, 2024. Case No. 23cr1984, 4 ECF No. 43. On the same day, the Court issued an order for a psychiatric examination. 5 Case No. 23cr1984, ECF No. 45. On May 24, 2024, the Court held a status hearing 6 regarding the competency exam, issued a new order for a psychiatric examination, and 7 vacated the motions in limine hearing date and trial date, and set a status hearing for 8 August 9, 2024. Case No. 23cr1984, ECF Nos. 48-49. 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 Before addressing the merits of the petition, the Court must first address two 11 threshold matters. First, the Court addresses the effect of Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal 12 and whether it retains jurisdiction to take any further action in this case at this time. 13 Generally, the filing of a proper notice of appeal has jurisdictional significance because it 14 divests the district court of control over the case and confers jurisdiction to the appellate 15 court. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). However, “when 16 there is a deficiency in the notice of appeal for whatever reason, however, the district 17 court is not deprived of jurisdiction.” United States v. Garner, 663 F.2d 834, 838 (9th 18 Cir. 1981); Ruby v. Sec’y of U. S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966) (“Where the 19 deficiency in a notice of appeal, by reason of untimeliness, lack of essential recitals, or 20 reference to a non-appealable order, is clear to the district court, it may disregard the 21 purported notice of appeal and proceed with the case, knowing that it has not been 22 deprived of jurisdiction.”). Here, this Court has taken no substantive action on the 23 petition that resolves the petition on the merit. Thus, there is no question that Petitioner’s 24 appeal is premature and there is no appealable order that has been issued in this case yet. 25 Thus, the Court maintains jurisdiction over the case. 26 Second, no response to the petition has yet been filed by Respondent. Nevertheless, 27 the Court may screen Section 2241 habeas petitions because they are subject to the same 28 screening requirements as Section 2254 habeas petitions. Rule 1(b) of the Rules 1 Governing Section 2254 cases states that a district court may apply those rules to any 2 habeas petition. In turn, Rule 4 requires that a district court dismiss a petition without 3 ordering a responsive pleading when “it plainly appears from the petition and any 4 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Allen v. Villanueva, No. 5 22cv6000-GW (GJS), 2023 WL 318439, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2023). Thus, this Court 6 may properly address the merits of the petition at this juncture. See Bostic v. Carlson, 884 7 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Nettles v. Grounds, 830 8 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (no error found where district court addressed merits of § 2241 9 petition where respondents had not yet appeared). 10 Finally, the Court turns to the merits of the petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 11 district courts have jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition brought by a federal pretrial 12 detainee and may grant a petition if the custody is “in violation of the Constitution or 13 laws or treaties of the United States” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see McNeely v. Blanas, 336 14 F.3d 822, 824 (9th Cir. 2003). However, to be eligible for this relief, Petitioner is 15 required to exhaust available remedies. Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391-92 (1918); 16 Jenkins v. Noonan, No. 20-CV-00921-H-LL, 2020 WL 2745234, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 17 27, 2020). 18 Courts within this circuit, as well as other circuits, have consistently held that 19 Section 2241 is not a proper vehicle for relief for federal prisoners awaiting trial. Jenkins, 20 2020 WL 2745234, at *1; Mehmood v. Hollows, No. 1:15-CV-01476-SAB-HC, 2015 WL 21 5915430, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2015). These courts reason that the Bail Reform Act of 22 1984 provides the proper avenue of relief for federal pretrial detainees seeking to 23 challenge their detention. Under this Act, any “‘judicial officer” may order the detention 24 or release of a defendant pending trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142. Section 3145 in turn provides 25 the procedures for review and appeal of such orders. 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b)(“ “If a person is 26 ordered detained by a magistrate judge, or by a person other than a judge of a court 27 having original jurisdiction over the offense and other than a Federal appellate court, the 28 person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for 1 revocation or amendment of the order. The motion shall be determined promptly.”). In 2 || light of these provisions, courts have held that “[w]here a defendant is awaiting trial, the 3 || appropriate vehicle for violations of his constitutional rights are pretrial motions or the 4 ||expedited appeal procedure provided by the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), (c), 5 ||and not a habeas corpus petition.” Jenkins, 2020 WL 2745234, at *2 (quoting Whitmer v. 6 || Levi, 276 F. App’x 217, 219 (3d Cir. 2008)); Reese v. Spaulding, No. CV 18-11235-DJC, 7 WL 3966319, at *1 (D. Mass. Aug. 9, 2018) (“[F]ederal courts have routinely held 8 a federal pretrial detainee challenging aspects of his pending criminal charges must 9 || seek relief in the criminal action, not in a habeas proceeding.’’); see also Medina v. 10 || Choate, 875 F.3d 1025, 1028 (10th Cir. 2017); United States v. Pipito, 861 F.2d 1006, 11 || 1009 (7th Cir. 1987); Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1017-18 (Sth Cir. 1988). 12 This is exactly the situation here—Petitioner is a federal pretrial detainee where his 13 ||}criminal trial remains pending in front of this Court. Each of the grounds for relief in his 14 || petition pertain to issues in his pending criminal trial. See ECF No. 1. Thus, it is clear that 15 || Petitioner is not entitled to relief in a habeas petition under Section 2241 at this time and 16 Court must DENY the petition. Jenkins, 2020 WL 2745234, at *2; Mehmood, 2015 17 || WL 5915430, at *3. 18 Hr. CONCLUSION 19 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. 20 || Because the Court denies the petition on the merits, the Court also DENIES AS MOOT 21 || Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and motion to appoint counsel. ECF 22 ||Nos. 2, 6. The Court orders the Clerk of the Court to close this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 35 Dated: May 31, 2024 “| ie SF amecae ot 26 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 07 United States District Judge 28