(HC) Ryland v. Director of Bureau of Prisons

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 COREY R. RYLAND, Case No. 1:23-cv-01191-EPG-HC

12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING RESPONDENT’S 13 v. MOTION TO RELATE CASES BE GRANTED 14 DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF PRISONS, (ECF No. 17) 15 Respondent. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 16 TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 Petitioner Corey R. Ryland is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 19 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned 20 recommends that Respondent’s motion to relate cases be granted. 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On August 10, 2023, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus commencing the 24 instant matter. (ECF No. 1.) Therein, Petitioner alleges that staff members at USP Terre Haute 25 conspired to violate Petitioner’s religious rights and prevented him from completing the Life 26 Connection Program. (Id. at 6.1) Meanwhile, on August 7, 2023, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition 27 1 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California challenging Petitioner’s 2 custody classification, sentence computation, and education good time credits. (Petition, Ryland 3 v. Director of Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:23-cv-01211-SAB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2023), ECF No. 1.) 4 On August 11, 2023, that petition was ordered to be transferred to this Court. (Order, Ryland, 5 No. 1:23-cv-01211-SAB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2023), ECF No. 4.) 6 On October 6, 2023, Petitioner filed exhibits purportedly in support of his petition in this 7 case. (ECF No. 7.) On October 18, 2023, the undersigned found that the exhibits appeared to be 8 relevant to Petitioner’s other pending habeas matter and ordered that the exhibits be filed in No. 9 1:23-cv-01211-SAB. (ECF No. 8.) Meanwhile, on October 16, 2023, Petitioner filed exhibits 10 purportedly in support of his petition in No. 1:23-cv-01211-SAB. (Exhibits, Ryland, No. 1:23- 11 cv-01211-SAB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2023), ECF No. 11.) On October 18, 2023, Judge Boone 12 found that the exhibits filed in No. 1:23-cv-01211-SAB appeared to be relevant to the petition in 13 the instant matter and ordered that the exhibits be filed in this proceeding. (Order, Ryland, No. 14 1:23-cv-01211-SAB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2023), ECF No. 13.) 15 On January 5, 2024, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss and motion to relate 16 cases. (ECF No. 17.) To date, no opposition or statement of nonopposition has been filed, and 17 the time for doing so has passed. 18 II. 19 DISCUSSION 20 In the motion, Respondent contends that Petitioner has “filed successive § 2241 petitions 21 raising the same or similar issues” that “are pending before two different jurists in the same 22 court.” (ECF No. 17 at 2.) Respondent moves the Court to “strike all other petition claims, 23 pleadings, and supplements (after the 8/10/2023 petition initiating EDCA 23-cv-1191), without 24 prejudice, and thereafter provide Petitioner leave to file a single petition, i.e., a single amended 25 petition in EDCA 23-cv-1191, in accordance with § 2244(a) and § 2241.” (Id. at 3.) Respondent 26 also “moves that the matters, denoted EDCA 23-cv-1191 and EDCA 23-cv-1211, be 27 consolidated and related before the same jurist in a single denoted matter (same parties, same 1 Local Rule 123 provides:

2 (a) Definition of Related Cases. An action is related to another action within the meaning of this Rule when 3 (1) both actions involve the same parties and are based on 4 the same or a similar claim;

5 (2) both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event; 6 (3) both actions involve similar questions of fact and the 7 same question of law and their assignment to the same Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely to effect a substantial 8 savings of judicial effort, either because the same result should follow in both actions or otherwise; or 9 (4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial 10 duplication of labor if the actions were heard by different Judges or Magistrate Judges. 11 . . . 12 (c) Reassignment. . . . If the Judge to whom the action with the 13 lower or lowest number has been assigned determines that assignment of the actions to a single Judge is likely to effect a 14 savings of judicial effort or other economies, that Judge is authorized to enter an order reassigning all higher numbered 15 related actions to himself or herself. 16 L.R. 123(a), (c). 17 Here, for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Petitioner’s new pro se petition 18 in No. 1:23-cv-01211-SAB should be construed as a motion to amend the pending petition in the 19 instant matter. Therefore, given “it would entail substantial duplication of labor if the actions 20 were heard by different Judges or Magistrate Judges,” L.R. 123(a)(4), the undersigned 21 recommends that Respondent’s motion to relate cases be granted. 22 Generally, “where a new pro se petition is filed before the adjudication of a prior petition 23 is complete, the new petition should be construed as a motion to amend the pending petition 24 rather than as a successive application.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888–90 (9th Cir. 2008); 25 see also Grullon v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 137, 138 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (applying this line of 26 reasoning to a § 2241 petition). Here, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 27 commencing the instant matter on August 10, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) Thereafter, a new pro se 1 11, 2023), ECF No. 4.) Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Court construe the 2 new petition in No. 1:23-cv-01211-SAB as a motion to amend the pending petition in the instant 3 matter. 4 Respondent requests this Court to “provide Petitioner leave to file a single petition, i.e., a 5 single amended petition in EDCA 23-cv-1191.” (ECF No. 17 at 3.) Petitioner has not filed an 6 opposition or otherwise responded to Respondent’s request. Therefore, the undersigned 7 recommends that the Court grant Petitioner leave to amend the petition in the instant matter. 8 III. 9 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 10 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 11 1. Respondent’s motion to relate cases (ECF No. 17) be GRANTED; 12 2. Ryland v. Director of Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:23-cv-01191-EPG, and Ryland v. Director 13 of Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:23-cv-01211-SAB, be related pursuant to Local Rule 123; 14 3. Ryland, No. 1:23-cv-01211-SAB, be reassigned to the judges assigned to the instant 15 matter; 16 4. The petition filed in Ryland, No. 1:23-cv-01211-SAB, be construed as a motion to amend 17 the pending petition in the instant matter; 18 5. The Court grant Petitioner leave to amend the petition in the instant matter; and 19 6. The Court administratively close Ryland, No. 1:23-cv-01211-SAB. 20 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 21 the present matter. 22 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 23 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 24 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 25 Within THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may 26 file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 27 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the 1 | assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 2 | pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within 3 | the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. 4 | Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th 5 | Cir. 1991)). 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8] Dated: _ April 15, 2024 [sf ey — 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28