Jackson v. Warden of the Federal Detention Center at SeaTac

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA TAYAN JACKSON, Case No. 2:24-cv-00547-TMC Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. WARDEN OF THE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER AT SEATAC, Respondent.

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Judge Grady J. Leupold, United States Magistrate Judge, Petitioner Tayan Jackson’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER: 1. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. a. The Court has conducted de novo review of the Report and Recommendation based on Petitioner Jackson’s objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). b. Mr. Jackson objects that the Report and Recommendation was premature because he did not receive a copy of Respondent’s Return (Dkt. 23) or Opposition to the Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Dkt. 26) before the Report and Recommendation was issued. Dkt. 34. But in response to Mr. Jackson’s letter informing the Court that he did not receive those documents, Judge Leupold directed the clerk to send him new copies and granted him additional time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 31. Mr. Jackson then filed replies to both documents he initially did not receive (Dkt. 32, 33) which the Court will construe liberally as additional objections to the Report and Recommendation. c. In those filings, Mr. Jackson objects that he could not exhaust his administrative remedies because of his transfer between facilities. Dkt. 32 at 3; Dkt. 33 at 2. But Mr. Jackson does not address Judge Leupold’s recommendation that, because he is challenging the conditions of his confinement, rather than the fact or duration of his imprisonment, his claim may not proceed through a habeas corpus petition and instead must be filed as a civil rights action. The Court agrees with Judge Leupold’s analysis. 2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer for lack of jurisdiction is denied. 3. Petitioner’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing is also denied. 4. Petitioner’s federal habeas Petition is dismissed without prejudice as not cognizable in habeas. 5. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, to counsel for Respondent, and to the Hon. Grady J. Leupold. Dated this 7th day of November, 2024. a7 CC Tiffany M. Cartwright United States District Judge