Shaundelle Dial v. M. Gutierez

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 9, 2022
• Docket: 5:21-cv-02100
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 5:21-cv-02100-VBF-MRW Document18 Filed 08/09/22 Page1of4 Page ID #:287 □ JS-6 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 2 Case No. ED CV 21-2100 VBF (MRW) 13 | SHAUNDELLE DIAL, 1 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Vv. 16 | M. GUTIERREZ, Acting Warden, 17 Respondent. 18 19 The Court dismisses this habeas action without prejudice as moot. 20 woke 21 1. Petitioner Dial formerly was an inmate at the federal prison in 99 | Victorville. In December 2021, he filed a habeas petition in this district 93 | under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The gist of the petition complained about 24 | Petitioner’s placement in and out of Victorville’s segregated housing unit 25 | and protective housing while he waited to be transferred to another prison. 96 | (Docket # 1 at 2-3.) 27 2. Significantly, the relief that Petitioner requested in his petition 98 || was “a court order [for] Warden T. Jusino to transfer me immediately” to

Case 5:21-cv-02100-VBF-MRW Document 18 Filed 08/09/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:288

1 his new prison facility (Id. at 3.) (The petition also demanded production 2 of prison records and future detention orders; none of these requests 3 properly falls within the scope of habeas corpus relief.) 4 3. The government subsequently moved to dismiss the action in 5 its entirety. (Docket # 7.) Among the arguments that the government 6 advanced was its observation that the habeas action was moot; Petitioner 7 was transferred to a federal prison in Florida shortly after commencing the 8 action. 9 4. Petitioner’s responsive filing did not address this mootness 10 issue. (Docket # 16.) (It primarily responded to the government’s 11 alternative dismissal arguments regarding whether Petitioner properly 12 exhausted his claims.) However, the Court takes notice that the return 13 address on Petitioner’s envelope shows that he is currently housed at the 14 federal prison facility in Coleman, Florida. (Id. at 12.) That comports with 15 Magistrate Judge Wilner’s review of Petitioner’s earlier change-of-address 16 submission indicating that Petitioner was in the process of being moved. 17 (Docket # 11.) 18 * * * 19 5. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person 20 detained is not entitled” to relief, a court may summarily dismiss an action. 21 Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for 22 summary dismissal to district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of 23 the petition [ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”). 24 * * * 25 6. Petitioner’s action is moot. The habeas relief that he sought in 26 his petition was an order effectuating his then-pending transfer from a 27 federal prison in California to one in Florida. He subsequently received 28 2 Case 5:21-cv-02100-VBF-MRW Document 18 Filed 08/09/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:289

1 that transfer. There is no basis for this Court to consider his habeas corpus 2 claim further. Green v. Jenkins, 859 F. App’x 186, 187 (9th Cir. 2021) 3 (prisoner’s “claim for habeas relief premised on conditions at MDC LA is 4 now moot” due to transfer to different facility); Miller v. United States, No. 5 ED CV 18-2064 SVW (SP) (C.D. Cal.), 2020 WL 3979693 at *2 (prisoner 6 transfer to another prison rendered petition moot; “it appears petitioner’s 7 claims have at least substantially been met”). Dismissal of Petitioner’s 8 moot habeas action is appropriate because there is no other aspect of his 9 sentence or conditions of confinement for this Court to address.1 10 Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). 11 7. The Court notes, but declines to substantively address, the 12 government’s alternative dismissal argument regarding the 13 unreviewability of the housing determination of the Bureau of Prisons. 14 (Docket # 10 at 7-8.) “Congress has given federal prison officials full 15 discretion” to control conditions of confinement. Moody v. Daggett, 429 16 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976); Pham Huu Duc v. United States, No. CV 14-1273 SS 17 (C.D. Cal.), 2014 WL 4273252 at *4 (2014); 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (BOP “shall 18 designate the place of the prisoner’s imprisonment”). Consequently, a 19 federal habeas court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review 20 discretionary determinations regarding inmate housing, classification, and 21 other BOP determinations. Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1228 (9th Cir. 22 2011) (federal courts “lack jurisdiction to review” claim regarding RDAP 23 drug program participation); United States v. Ceballos, 671 F.3d 852, 855

24 1 The Court considered whether to convert Petitioner’s habeas action into a civil rights action based on his allegations of improper detention at the 25 Victorville facility. However, those allegations are unclear, cursory, and failed to identify proper defendants for a Bivens action. On that basis, the Court declines 26 to sua sponte convert Petitioner’s case. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 936 (9th Cir. 2016) (“court may recharacterize the petition so long as it warns the 27 pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion” (including cost of filing fees)); Fiorito v. Entzel, 829 F. App’x 192, 194 (9th Cir. 2020) (same; declining 28 conversion). 3 Case 5:21-cv-02100-VBF-MRW Document18 Filed 08/09/22 Page4of4 Page ID #:290

1 | (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (BOP has “the statutory authority to choose 2 | the locations where prisoners serve their sentence”). 3 kk 4 8. Petitioner ultimately received the relief he sought when he 5 | commenced this habeas action. As a result, the case must be dismissed 6 | without prejudice as moot. 8 Petitioner’s two-page document filed August 8, 2022 (Doc 17), which 9 | the Clerk’s office docketed as a “Motion to Notify Courts”, is DENIED as 10 | moot. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 | Dated: August 9, 2022 /s/ Valerie Baker Fairbank 1 HON. VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK — 16 SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 | Presented by: 19 “Vil 21 | Hon, MICHAEL R. WILNER 92 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28