Darrell King v. Warden

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 1, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-06444
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 DARRELL KING, Case No. 2:23-06444 TJH (ADS)

11 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 12 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 WARDEN, United States Penitentiary, Victorville 14 Respondent. 15 16 Darrell King (“Petitioner”) is an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in 17 Victorville, California. On August 8, 2023, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 18 Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) challenging the constitutionality of federal 19 compassionate release law. (Dkt. No. 1.) Petitioner claims Congress violated his due 20 process, equal protection, and Eighth Amendment rights by passing federal law that 21 prohibits prisoners like Petitioner, who were convicted of crimes before November 1, 22 1987, from petitioning a district court for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 23 § 3582(c). (Id. at 6–7, 10.) Petitioner claims he is a strong candidate for compassionate 24 1 release and requests an order releasing him from prison due to these alleged 2 constitutional violations. (Id. at 7–8.) 3 The Petition does not state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. A federal 4 court shall entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus if “[the petitioner] is in 5 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

6 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for 7 challenging the legality or duration of a prisoner’s confinement, while a civil rights 8 action is the proper method to challenge conditions of confinement. Nettles v. Grounds, 9 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (internal citation omitted); Badea v. Cox, 10 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). When success on a petitioner’s claim would not 11 necessarily lead to a petitioner’s immediate or earlier release from confinement, the 12 claim does not fall within the core of habeas corpus, and the claim thus may not be 13 brought in habeas corpus. Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1069–71 (9th Cir. 2023); 14 Nettles, 830 F.3d at 934. 15 Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief based on the claim he asserts. 16 Petitioner is not challenging the legality or duration of his detention; his claim

17 challenges the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits him from seeking 18 compassionate release from the district court on his own. In 2018, Congress passed the 19 First Step Act, 132 Stat. 5194, which allowed federal inmates to seek compassionate 20 release directly from the district court if the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) denies or fails to 21 timely act on an administrative request for such release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). But 22 section 3582(c)(1) “only applies to prisoners who offended on or after 23 November 1, 1987.” United States v. King, 24 F.4th 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing 24 Sentencing Act of 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-182 § 2(a), 101 Stat. 1266 (1987)). Inmates who 1 committed crimes before then—i.e., “pre-SRA inmates”—“can gain compassionate 2 release only if the [BOP] requests it on the prisoner’s behalf under 18 U.S.C. § 4205(g).” 3 Id. at 1228. In October 2020, “Congress kept § 4205(g) alive . . . to control 4 compassionate release procedures for pre-SRA inmates through 2022.” Id. at 1229 5 (citing United States Parole Commission Extension Act of 2020 (PCE Act), Pub. L. No.

6 116-519 § 4202, 134 Stat. 709, 741 (2020)). 7 Petitioner is a pre-SRA inmate. The United States District Court for the Northern 8 District of California sentenced him in 1982. United States v. King, No. 3:81-cr-00311- 9 RS-1, Northern District of California Docket (“N.D. Cal. Dkt.”) No. 244 (N.D. Cal. 10 Jul. 20, 2017). Petitioner previously filed a motion for compassionate release, which the 11 Northern District denied because federal law expressly prohibits him from seeking such 12 relief. (N.D. Cal. Dkt. No. 278 at 3–4) (“Congress has precluded King from bringing the 13 motion in the first place. . . . No amount of argument in this forum . . . can disturb this 14 state of affairs. . . . § 3582(c)(1)(A) remains off limits to elderly inmates in King’s 15 position.”) The Ninth Circuit affirmed. See King, 24 F.4th at 1231 (concluding “the law 16 is clear” that “Section 3582 only extends to prisoners who offended on or after

17 November 1, 1987,” and that Petitioner is subject to 18 U.S.C. § 4205(g), under which 18 any request for compassionate release must be initiated by the BOP). Petitioner 19 subsequently filed the instant Petition. 20 But Petitioner’s claim—that Congress prohibiting him from seeking 21 compassionate release on his own violates his constitutional rights—is not cognizable for 22 habeas relief. (Dkt. No. 1 at 6–8, 10.) Although he asks to be released from prison, 23 success on Petitioner’s claim would not necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier 24 release. Petitioner would still need to request compassionate release from the Northern 1 || District of California, as only the original sentencing court can entertain such requests. 2 ||See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. Rala, 954 F.3d 594, 595 (3d Cir. 2020); 3 || United States v. Richardson, 948 F.3d 733, 749 (6th Cir. 2020); United States v. Smith, 4 F.3d 466, 473 (D.C. Cir. 2018); Rodriguez-Aguirre v. Hudgins, 739 F. App’x 489, 5 n.2 (10th Cir. 2018); see also Bolden v. Ponce, No. 2:20-cv-03870-JFW-MAA, 2020 6 || WL 2097751, at *2 & n.2 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (collecting cases). The Petition fails to state a 7 || cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed as moot g pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Thay Bafle 12 || Dated: MARCH 1, 2024 THE HONORABLE TERRY J. HATTER, JR. 13 United States District Judge 14 || Presented by: 15 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 16 || United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24