Hiatt v. United States ( 2022 )

1 ASH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Simon Calvin Simms Hiatt, No. CV 22-01697-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 United States of America, 13 Respondent. 14 15 I. Background 16 On July 27, 2022, Petitioner Simon Calvin Simms Hiatt, who is now confined in the 17 Federal Correctional Institution (FCI)-Terminal Island in San Pedro, California,1 filed a 18 “Motion Under Compassionate Release 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) Pursuant to Sentence 19 Error of Rule 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a)” in his underlying criminal case, United States v. Hiatt, 20 2:19-CR-00777-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz. July 27, 2022). By Order dated August 16, 2022, the 21 Court found that because the claims in the motion related to the calculation of his sentence, 22 they were not properly brought under § 3582. Accordingly, the Court directed the Clerk 23 of Court to file the Motion as a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 24 2241 in a new case, and denied the Motion in the criminal case. (See Doc. 51 in 2:19-CR- 25 00777-PHX-SPL). The Clerk of Court did so, opening case no. 2:22-CV-01380-PHX-JAT 26 (JZB) (D. Ariz. 2022). By Order dated September 9, 2022 in that case, the Court gave 27 28 1 At the time he filed his original Motion on July 27, 2022, Petitioner was confined at FCI-Phoenix. 1 Petitioner 30 days to a) pay the $5.00 filing fee or to submit an Application to Proceed In 2 Forma Pauperis, and b) to submit an Amended § 2241 Petition using the court-approved 3 form. (See Doc. 3 in 2:22-CV-01380-PHX-JAT (JZB)). A copy of the Order was mailed 4 to Petitioner that same day. However, on October 3, 2022, the Order was returned to the 5 Court as undeliverable because Petitioner was no longer housed at FCI-Phoenix. On 6 October 21, 2022, having received no notification of change of address or any other filing 7 from Petitioner, the Clerk of Court closed the case for failure to keep the Court apprised of 8 his whereabouts. (Id. Doc. 6). 9 Meanwhile, on September 27, 2022, Petitioner filed an “Amended Motion for 10 Compassionate Release” in his underlying criminal case. (See Doc. 53 in 2:19-CR-00777- 11 PHX-SPL) (hereafter, the “Amended Motion”). The envelope for that filing indicated that 12 Petitioner was confined at FCI-Terminal Island. (See Doc. 53-2 in 2:19-CR-00777-PHX- 13 SPL). As with his original motion, the Amended Motion challenged the computation of 14 his sentence, and thus was not properly a motion for compassionate release pursuant to § 15 3582. Accordingly, by Order dated October 6, 2022, the Court again ordered the Clerk of 16 Court to file the Amended Motion as a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 17 U.S.C. § 2241 in a new case, and denied the Motion in the criminal case. (See Doc. 54 in 18 2:19-CR-00777-PHX-SPL). The Clerk of Court did so the same day, opening the instant 19 action to consider Petitioner’s Amended Motion. 20 Upon the opening of this action, the Court gave Petitioner 30 days to a) pay the 21 $5.00 filing fee or to submit an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and b) submit 22 an Amended § 2241 Petition using the court-approved form. (Doc. 3). On November 18, 23 2022, Petitioner filed an Amended § 2241 Petition (Doc. 4), and on November 22, 2022, 24 he paid the $5.00 filing fee (Doc. 5). The Amended § 2241 Petition indicates that Petitioner 25 continues to be confined at FCI-Terminal Island. 26 II. Discussion 27 “The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon 28 the person who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973). Where a prisoner files a § 2241 petition challenging the manner of execution of his sentence, the “‘prisoner must name the | warden of the penitentiary where he is confined as respondent.” Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989); see also, Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.1992) (explaining that a federal habeas petitioner’s immediate custodian is the only party that can actually produce the body of the petitioner). 7 As noted, Petitioner is no longer confined in Arizona, and his present immediate 8 | custodian—the Warden at FCI-Terminal Island—is not located in this District. As such, 9| this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Petitioner’s custodian, and is thus unable to 10 | consider the merits of his Amended § 2241 Petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[flor the 11 | convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28U.S.C. § 1404(a). Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 1631 provides that a court lacking jurisdiction 14| may “in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court □□ □ in 15 | which the action could have been brought. . .”- 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 16 Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the Court will transfer this matter to the 17 | United States District Court for the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; 18) Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259. 262 (9th Cir. 1990); In re McCauley, 814 F.2d 1350, 19 | 1352 (9th Cir. 1987). ORDERED: 21 (1) The Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER this case to the United States 22 | District Court for the Central District of California. 23 Dated this 8th day of December, 2022. 24 25 a 26 7 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 28 -3-