1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Manuel Duarte-Ruelas, No. CV-18-01873-PHX-RCC (BGM)
10 Petitioner,
11 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
12 Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner Manuel Duarte-Ruelas’s pro se 15 Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal 16 Custody (“Petition”) (Doc. 1). Respondents filed their Response to Petition for a Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus (“Response”) (Doc. 16). Respondents subsequently filed a Motion to 18 Dismiss (Suggestion of Mootness) (Doc. 18). The Hon. James F. Metcalf “construe[d] this 19 filing as a supplement to Respondents’ Answer [“Response”] to the Petition.” Order 20 8/23/2018 (Doc. 19). Petitioner filed his Traverse (Doc. 20). The State Respondent joined 21 the response and supplement filed by the Federal Respondents. Respondent Ryan’s Joinder 22 in Response to Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Suppl. (Doc. 22). The Petition is ripe 23 for adjudication. 24 Pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure,1 this matter 25 was referred to Magistrate Judge Macdonald for Report and Recommendation. The 26 Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court dismiss the Petition (Doc. 1). 27
28 1 Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 A. Florida Criminal Matter 3 Petitioner Manuel Duarte-Ruelas was confined in Arizona State Prison Complex— 4 Yuma, Cibola Unit in San Luis, Arizona. See Petition (Doc. 1). On July 7, 2016, Petitioner 5 was indicted on one (1) count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. 6 Indictment, United States v. Ruelas, No. 8:16-CR-00304-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. July 7, 7 2016) (Doc. 1). On August 4, 2016, Petitioner was served with a detainer as a result of this 8 indictment. Petition (Doc. 1), Detainer Against Sentenced State Prisoner Based on Fed. 9 Arrest Warrant 8/3/2016 (Exh. “B”). On August 11, 2016, the executed detainer was 10 received in the Middle District of Florida. Notice, United States v. Ruelas, No. 8:16-CR- 11 00304-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. August 11, 2016) (Doc. 3). Petitioner demanded a speedy 12 trial. Id. On April 23, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion for Final Disposition of Untried 13 Warrants, Information, Complaints or Indictments (“Motion for Final Disposition”) 14 seeking “disposition of this matter pursuant to the Interstate Agreement On Detainers[.]” 15 Mot. for Final Disposition, United States v. Ruelas, No. 8:16-CR-00304-VMC-JSS (M.D. 16 Fla. April 23, 2018) (Doc. 5) at 1. On May 26, 2018, Petitioner’s motion was denied 17 without prejudice with leave to “raise these issues if he so desires when he is taken into 18 custody in the Middle District of Florida.” Order, United States v. Ruelas, No. 8:16-CR- 19 00304-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. May 26, 2018) (Doc. 6). On August 22, 2018, the 20 Government filed its motion to dismiss Petitioner’s criminal case. Request for Leave to 21 Dismiss Indictment, United States v. Ruelas, No. 8:16-CR-00304-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. 22 August 22, 2018) (Doc. 7) at 1. On the same date, the Florida district court granted the 23 Government’s motion and dismissed the pending criminal case against Petitioner. Order, 24 United States v. Ruelas, No. 8:16-CR-00304-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. August 22, 2018) (Doc. 25 8). 26 B. The Instant Habeas Proceeding 27 On June 14, 2018, Petitioner filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Petitioner asserts a single ground for relief alleging that he 1 “was denied due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Interstate 2 Agreement on Detainers Act when he was denied the opportunity to obtain a speedy 3 disposition of a detainer lodged against him by the U.S. Marshals.” Petition (Doc. 1) at 4. 4 On August 14, 2018, Respondents filed their Response (Doc. 16), asserting that pursuant 5 to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (“IADA”) this Court lacks jurisdiction over 6 the matter. Response (Doc. 16) at 3–4. On August 2, 2018, Respondents filed their 7 supplemental response (Doc. 18), noting that the United States District Court for the 8 Middle District of Florida had dismissed the indictment thereby mooting Petitioner’s 9 habeas claim. On August 24, 2018, Petitioner filed his Reply (Doc. 15). 10 11 II. ANALYSIS 12 A. Jurisdiction 13 “Federal courts are always ‘under an independent obligation to examine their own 14 jurisdiction,’ . . . and a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no 15 jurisdiction.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 16 FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990)). “Generally, motions to contest 17 the legality of a sentence must be filed under § 2255 in the sentencing court, while petitions 18 that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution must be 19 brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court.” Id. at 864. Therefore, before proceeding 20 to any other issue a court must establish whether a habeas petition is filed pursuant to § 21 2241 or § 2255 to determine whether jurisdiction is proper. Id. at 865. 22 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized federal jurisdiction over 23 challenges to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (“IAD”) in the context of state 24 prisoners challenging their conviction pursuant to Section 2254, Title 28, United States 25 Code. See Cody v. Morris, 623 F.2d 101, 103 (9th Cir. 1980) (remanding to the district 26 court for consideration of a question of fact raised by petitioner’s IAD claim). If Petitioner 27 had been convicted and was challenging that conviction based on an alleged IAD violation, 28 such a collateral attack would be appropriate pursuant to Section 2255, Title 28, United 1 States Code. See Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 333–34, 114 S. Ct. 2291, 2299–2300, 129 2 L. Ed. 2d 277 (1994). A pre-conviction attack on a violation of the IAD is potentially 3 within the federal courts’ habeas jurisdiction. Boettcher v. Doyle, 105 Fed. App’x 852, 4 854 (10th Cir. 2004) (exercising jurisdiction over a federal prisoner’s § 2241 habeas 5 challenge regarding the IAD). 6 Here, Petitioner seeks relief regarding an alleged denial of the opportunity to obtain 7 a speedy disposition of a detainer lodged against him in violation of the IAD. Petition 8 (Doc. 1) at 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter. 9 B. Mootness 10 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 11 Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). “The 12 jurisdiction of federal courts is defined and limited by Article III of the Constitution.” Flast 13 v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1949, 20 L.Ed. 947 (1968). Further, the judicial 14 power of this and all federal courts is limited to actual cases or controversies. U.S. Const. 15 art. III; see also, Flast, 392 U.S. at 94–95, 88 S.Ct. at 1949–50 (1968). “In general a case 16 becomes moot ‘when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally 17 cognizable interest in the outcome.’” Murphy v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Manuel Duarte-Ruelas, No. CV-18-01873-PHX-RCC (BGM)
10 Petitioner,
11 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
12 Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner Manuel Duarte-Ruelas’s pro se 15 Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal 16 Custody (“Petition”) (Doc. 1). Respondents filed their Response to Petition for a Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus (“Response”) (Doc. 16). Respondents subsequently filed a Motion to 18 Dismiss (Suggestion of Mootness) (Doc. 18). The Hon. James F. Metcalf “construe[d] this 19 filing as a supplement to Respondents’ Answer [“Response”] to the Petition.” Order 20 8/23/2018 (Doc. 19). Petitioner filed his Traverse (Doc. 20). The State Respondent joined 21 the response and supplement filed by the Federal Respondents. Respondent Ryan’s Joinder 22 in Response to Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Suppl. (Doc. 22). The Petition is ripe 23 for adjudication. 24 Pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure,1 this matter 25 was referred to Magistrate Judge Macdonald for Report and Recommendation. The 26 Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court dismiss the Petition (Doc. 1). 27
28 1 Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 A. Florida Criminal Matter 3 Petitioner Manuel Duarte-Ruelas was confined in Arizona State Prison Complex— 4 Yuma, Cibola Unit in San Luis, Arizona. See Petition (Doc. 1). On July 7, 2016, Petitioner 5 was indicted on one (1) count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. 6 Indictment, United States v. Ruelas, No. 8:16-CR-00304-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. July 7, 7 2016) (Doc. 1). On August 4, 2016, Petitioner was served with a detainer as a result of this 8 indictment. Petition (Doc. 1), Detainer Against Sentenced State Prisoner Based on Fed. 9 Arrest Warrant 8/3/2016 (Exh. “B”). On August 11, 2016, the executed detainer was 10 received in the Middle District of Florida. Notice, United States v. Ruelas, No. 8:16-CR- 11 00304-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. August 11, 2016) (Doc. 3). Petitioner demanded a speedy 12 trial. Id. On April 23, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion for Final Disposition of Untried 13 Warrants, Information, Complaints or Indictments (“Motion for Final Disposition”) 14 seeking “disposition of this matter pursuant to the Interstate Agreement On Detainers[.]” 15 Mot. for Final Disposition, United States v. Ruelas, No. 8:16-CR-00304-VMC-JSS (M.D. 16 Fla. April 23, 2018) (Doc. 5) at 1. On May 26, 2018, Petitioner’s motion was denied 17 without prejudice with leave to “raise these issues if he so desires when he is taken into 18 custody in the Middle District of Florida.” Order, United States v. Ruelas, No. 8:16-CR- 19 00304-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. May 26, 2018) (Doc. 6). On August 22, 2018, the 20 Government filed its motion to dismiss Petitioner’s criminal case. Request for Leave to 21 Dismiss Indictment, United States v. Ruelas, No. 8:16-CR-00304-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. 22 August 22, 2018) (Doc. 7) at 1. On the same date, the Florida district court granted the 23 Government’s motion and dismissed the pending criminal case against Petitioner. Order, 24 United States v. Ruelas, No. 8:16-CR-00304-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. August 22, 2018) (Doc. 25 8). 26 B. The Instant Habeas Proceeding 27 On June 14, 2018, Petitioner filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Petitioner asserts a single ground for relief alleging that he 1 “was denied due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Interstate 2 Agreement on Detainers Act when he was denied the opportunity to obtain a speedy 3 disposition of a detainer lodged against him by the U.S. Marshals.” Petition (Doc. 1) at 4. 4 On August 14, 2018, Respondents filed their Response (Doc. 16), asserting that pursuant 5 to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (“IADA”) this Court lacks jurisdiction over 6 the matter. Response (Doc. 16) at 3–4. On August 2, 2018, Respondents filed their 7 supplemental response (Doc. 18), noting that the United States District Court for the 8 Middle District of Florida had dismissed the indictment thereby mooting Petitioner’s 9 habeas claim. On August 24, 2018, Petitioner filed his Reply (Doc. 15). 10 11 II. ANALYSIS 12 A. Jurisdiction 13 “Federal courts are always ‘under an independent obligation to examine their own 14 jurisdiction,’ . . . and a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no 15 jurisdiction.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 16 FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990)). “Generally, motions to contest 17 the legality of a sentence must be filed under § 2255 in the sentencing court, while petitions 18 that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution must be 19 brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court.” Id. at 864. Therefore, before proceeding 20 to any other issue a court must establish whether a habeas petition is filed pursuant to § 21 2241 or § 2255 to determine whether jurisdiction is proper. Id. at 865. 22 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized federal jurisdiction over 23 challenges to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (“IAD”) in the context of state 24 prisoners challenging their conviction pursuant to Section 2254, Title 28, United States 25 Code. See Cody v. Morris, 623 F.2d 101, 103 (9th Cir. 1980) (remanding to the district 26 court for consideration of a question of fact raised by petitioner’s IAD claim). If Petitioner 27 had been convicted and was challenging that conviction based on an alleged IAD violation, 28 such a collateral attack would be appropriate pursuant to Section 2255, Title 28, United 1 States Code. See Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 333–34, 114 S. Ct. 2291, 2299–2300, 129 2 L. Ed. 2d 277 (1994). A pre-conviction attack on a violation of the IAD is potentially 3 within the federal courts’ habeas jurisdiction. Boettcher v. Doyle, 105 Fed. App’x 852, 4 854 (10th Cir. 2004) (exercising jurisdiction over a federal prisoner’s § 2241 habeas 5 challenge regarding the IAD). 6 Here, Petitioner seeks relief regarding an alleged denial of the opportunity to obtain 7 a speedy disposition of a detainer lodged against him in violation of the IAD. Petition 8 (Doc. 1) at 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter. 9 B. Mootness 10 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 11 Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). “The 12 jurisdiction of federal courts is defined and limited by Article III of the Constitution.” Flast 13 v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1949, 20 L.Ed. 947 (1968). Further, the judicial 14 power of this and all federal courts is limited to actual cases or controversies. U.S. Const. 15 art. III; see also, Flast, 392 U.S. at 94–95, 88 S.Ct. at 1949–50 (1968). “In general a case 16 becomes moot ‘when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally 17 cognizable interest in the outcome.’” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S. Ct. 1181, 18 1183, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982) (quoting United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 19 388, 396, 100 S. Ct. 1202, 1208, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980)). 20 Here, on August 22, 2018, the Government filed its motion to dismiss Petitioner’s 21 criminal case. Request for Leave to Dismiss Indictment, United States v. Ruelas, No. 8:16- 22 CR-00304-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. August 22, 2018) (Doc. 7) at 1. On the same date, the 23 Florida district court granted the Government’s motion and dismissed the pending criminal 24 case against Petitioner. Order, United States v. Ruelas, No. 8:16-CR-00304-VMC-JSS 25 (M.D. Fla. August 22, 2018) (Doc. 8). In his habeas petition, Petitioner sought relief for 26 an alleged violation of his Due Process rights based on an alleged denial of “the opportunity 27 to obtain a speedy disposition of a detainer lodged against him by the U.S. Marshals.” 28 Petition (Doc. 1) at 4. The dismissal of the criminal cases disposes of the detainer, and 1 | Petitioner’s habeas claim should be dismissed. Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1098 2| (9th Cir. 1997) (where court “can no longer provide . . . the primary relief sought in 3 | [Petitioner’s] habeas corpus petition” the issue is moot and must be dismissed). 4 5); I. RECOMMENDATION 6 For the reasons delineated above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge enter an order DENYING Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ 8 | of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1). 9 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 10 | Procedure, any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after 11 | being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. Fed. 13 | R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). No replies shall be filed unless leave is granted from the District Court. 14 | If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV-18-01873- 15 | PHX-RCC. 16 Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the 17 | Magistrate Judge may result in waiver of the right of review. The Clerk of the Court shall send acopy of this Report and Recommendation to all parties. 19 Dated this 3rd day of March, 2021.
‘United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
_5-