Cantrell v. Pyramid Lake Tribal Court

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 17, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00174
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JOSEPH CANTRELL, Case No. 3:23-cv-00174-MMD-CLB

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8

9 WASHOE COUNTY SHERIFF DARIN BALAAM,1 10 Respondent. 11 12 I. SUMMARY 13 This Indian Civil Rights Act habeas matter under 25 U.S.C. § 1303 comes before 14 the Court on a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 31) filed by Respondent, Washoe County 15 Sheriff Darin Balaam (“Sheriff”), as well as motions to stay further detention (ECF Nos. 16 27, 30) and a motion to stay a tribal court’s ruling in an eviction matter (ECF No. 26) filed 17 by Petitioner Joseph Cantrell. This order resolves these pending motions. 18 II. BACKGROUND 19 Cantrell is challenging a conviction and sentence entered in the Pyramid Lake 20 Tribal Court. (ECF No. 20.) He is incarcerated at the Washoe County Detention Facility 21 under an agreement between the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and the Bureau of 22 Indian Affairs. With his petition, he alleges, among other things, that he was deprived of 23 his right to a speedy trial and to effective assistance of counsel in the tribal court 24 proceeding that resulted in his conviction and sentence. 25 1While the caption of previous orders in this case identified the Respondent as the 26 “Washoe County Sheriff Detention Facility,” the Court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Petitioner’s habeas petition on Darin Balaam, the Washoe County Sheriff. (ECF 27 No. 21.) Such service having occurred on October 12, 2023 (ECF No. 25), Sheriff Balaam 1 III. THE SHERIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS 2 In the motion to dismiss, the Sheriff contends Washoe County cannot respond to 3 the claims raised in Cantrell’s petition because Washoe County did not participate in 4 Cantrell’s underlying criminal case. In particular, he claims “it would be inappropriate for 5 Respondent Washoe County to attempt to defend or address Petitioner’s grounds for 6 relief that are . . . questioning the validity of his conviction or sentence by a sovereign 7 jurisdiction like the Pyramid Lake Tribe.” (ECF No. 31 at 3.) The Court disagrees. 8 Under the immediate custodian rule applicable in general habeas proceedings that 9 challenge a petitioner’s current confinement, the petitioner’s immediate physical 10 custodian clearly is the proper respondent. See generally Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 11 426 (2004). Thus, while Washoe County is holding Cantrell on behalf of the Pyramid Lake 12 Tribe, the Sheriff is nonetheless required to respond to Cantrell’s petition. Based on the 13 Sheriff’s recent motion for an extension of time, his counsel have been in communication 14 with the tribal prosecutor about formulating a response to Cantrell’s petition. (See ECF 15 No. 28.) In addition, the Court notified the tribal prosecutor of this action over two months 16 ago.2 It is up to the tribal prosecutor to decide whether she wants to assist the Sheriff in 17 this matter, but if the Sheriff is unable to respond to Cantrell’s petition, he will be directed 18 to release Cantrell from custody. 19 The Sheriff also argues in his motion to dismiss that Ground Five of Cantrell’s 20 habeas petition should be dismissed because it challenges Cantrell’s conditions of 21 confinement, not the legality or duration of his contention. The Court agrees. See Preiser 22 v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 Ground Five is dismissed from Cantrell’s petition. 24 /// 25

26 2The Court directed the Clerk of Court to provide the Pyramid Lake Tribal Prosecutor a courtesy copy of Cantrell’s petition in an order entered on September 5, 27 2023. (ECF No. 21.) 2 1 IV. CANTRELL’S MOTIONS 2 With his motions to stay further detention (ECF Nos. 27, 30), Cantrell asks the 3 Court to grant him immediate release from custody. Default judgments are disfavored in 4 habeas corpus cases. Bleitner v. Weiborn, 15 F.3d 652, 653 (7th Cir.1994); Gordon v. 5 Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir.1990) (stating “[t]he failure to respond to claims raised 6 in a petition for habeas corpus does not entitle the petitioner to a default judgment”). Thus, 7 the Court is not prepared to grant Cantrell relief before receiving a substantive response 8 to the allegations in his petition. 9 Cantrell’s motion to stay a tribal court’s ruling in an eviction matter (ECF No. 26) 10 must also be denied. This matter is confined to testing the legality of Cantrell’s detention. 11 See 25 U.S.C. § 1303. Thus, this Court lacks authority to grant Cantrell the relief he seeks 12 with this motion. 13 V. CONCLUSION 14 It is therefore ordered that the Sheriff’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 31) is granted 15 in part and denied in part. Ground Five is dismissed from Cantrell’s petition. In all other 16 respects, the motion is denied. 17 It is further ordered that the Sheriff must file and serve an answer to Cantrell’s 18 petition (ECF No. 20) on or before November 29, 2023. 19 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court send, by U.S. Mail, a copy of this order 20 to the Pyramid Lake Tribal Prosecutor, P.O. Box 256, Nixon, Nevada 89424. 21 It is further ordered that Cantrell’s motions to stay further detention (ECF Nos. 27, 22 30) and a motion to stay a tribal court’s ruling in an eviction matter (ECF No. 26) are 23 denied. 24 It is further ordered that Cantrell’s motion to extend time (ECF No. 22) is denied as 25 moot. 26 27 3 1 It is further ordered that Cantrell’s motion in part inquiring about the status of his 2 || motion to stay (ECF No. 33) is denied as moot. 3 DATED THIS 17" Day of November 2023.

5 OS 6 CHIEF 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