Norton v. Barron

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00540-JLR-DWC 10 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 WARDEN OF THE FEDERAL 13 Respondent. 14 The District Court has referred this federal habeas action to United States Magistrate 15 Judge David W. Christel. Petitioner Daniel Norton, proceeding pro se, initiated this action 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, purportedly challenging the execution of his federal sentence. 17 Dkts. 1, 5. Following service of the Petition, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss or Transfer 18 this action for alleged defects in the Court’s habeas jurisdiction. Dkt. 11. Additionally, Petitioner 19 filed a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing. Dkt. 17. 20 Before resolving the issues presented in the pending motions, the Court finds it 21 necessary to address whether Petitioner has stated a claim appropriate for consideration in an 22 action for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the Court directs Petitioner to file an amended 23 petition clarifying his claim or show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 24 state a true habeas claim. 2 Upon review, it appears Petitioner’s sole claim for relief is not a true habeas claim. An 3 “action lying at the core of habeas corpus is one that goes directly to the constitutionality of the 4 prisoner’s physical confinement itself.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 503 (1973) (cleaned

5 up). “[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, 6 and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier 7 release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” Preiser, 411 8 U.S. at 500 (emphasis added). In contrast, a claim challenging the conditions of confinement or 9 seeking relief other than release from confinement, such as monetary damages, is not a true habeas 10 claim. Id. at 494 (explaining that claims seeking monetary damages do not sound in habeas); 11 Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (a petitioner fails to state a habeas claim 12 “where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s 13 sentence”). In those instances, a prisoner must instead file a civil rights action. Heck v. Humphrey, 14 512 U.S. 477, 482–83 (1994). These principles similarly apply to individuals confined in federal

15 detention facilities pursuant to federal convictions. See Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1072–73 16 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied sub nom. Sands v. Bradley, 144 S. Ct. 1382 (2024) (noting that a 17 federal prisoner’s claim only sounds in habeas if it “necessarily results in release”). 18 Here, it appears Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his federal confinement, not 19 the constitutionality of the confinement itself. In his sole claim for relief, Petitioner disputes the 20 reasons for his placement in segregated custody—Special Housing Units (“SHU”)—and asserts 21 the alleged failure of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to follow its own regulations for reviewing 22 his placement in SHU is a violation of his procedural due process rights. Dkt. 5 at 5–6. The 23 Court notes that there are aspects of Petitioner’s claim that could conceivably impact the timing

24 of his release (i.e., the potential impact on his ability to retain or earn good-time credits while in 1 SHU). Id. Even so, a favorable disposition of this claim would not require Petitioner’s release 2 from confinement—a prerequisite for his claim to sound in habeas corpus. See Pinson, at 1072– 3 73; Ramirez, at 859. 4 This point is illustrated most forcefully by the specific relief requested in the Petition:

5 Petitioner requests a court order requiring Respondent to demonstrate whether Petitioner has 6 received adequate process regarding his placement in SHU. Dkt. 5 at 6. If indeed Respondent has 7 not afforded Petitioner the appropriate process, Petitioner requests that the incident reports 8 leading to his placement in SHU be stricken from his BOP record. Id. Neither of these requests 9 would automatically result in Petitioner’s release from confinement. Because it appears 10 Petitioner is attacking something other than the fact or duration of his confinement and seeking 11 relief other than his immediate release from federal custody, he must show cause why his 12 Petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim that sounds in habeas corpus. 14 For the stated reasons, Petitioner must file an amended petition or show cause by

15 November 4, 2024, why his sole claim for relief should not be dismissed as not cognizable in an 16 action for habeas corpus relief. Respondent shall not respond to Petitioner’s response until 17 further order of the Court. The Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11) and the Motion for an Evidentiary 18 Hearing (Dkt. 17) are denied as moot with the right to refile if the Court determines Petitioner’s 19 claim should proceed under § 2241. If Petitioner fails to respond to this Order, the Court may 20 recommend dismissal of this action. 21 Dated this 4th day of October, 2024. 22 A 23 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 24