William R. Phillips v. Josie Castello ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM R. PHILLIPS, ) Case No. 2:20-cv-10412-JWH-JC 11 ) Petitioner, ) 12 ) ORDER (1) SUMMARILY v. ) DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT 13 ) OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND JOSIE GASTELO, ) (2) DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF 14 ) APPEALABILITY Respondent, ) 15 ____________________________ ) 16 I. SUMMARY 17 On November 2, 2020, petitioner William R. Phillips, who is in state 18 custody and is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 19 Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Petition, 20 construed liberally, seeks dismissal of a federal supervised release violation 21 petition and removal of a federal supervised release violation detainer that 22 assertedly are affecting petitioner’s state security level and keeping him from 23 certain educational and work programs (e.g., fire camp). (Petition at 5-6). He 24 contends that dismissal of the federal supervised release violation petition/removal 25 of the detainer would be in the interests of justice because he has been discipline 26 free since he received his GED and will be 85 when he completes his current state 27 sentence. (Petition at 5-6). 28 /// 1 /// 2 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 3 District Courts provides that a petition for writ of habeas corpus “must” be 4 summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached 5 exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Here, as it 6 plainly appears from the Petition that petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks 7 in the instant action, the Petition must be dismissed. 8 II. PERTINENT BACKGROUND1 9 On April 10, 2002, petitioner pleaded guilty in the Federal Criminal Case to 10 three counts of violating Title 18, United States Code, section 2113(a)(d) (armed 11 bank robbery). On January 26, 2004, the assigned District Judge sentenced 12 petitioner to a total term of 188 months in prison to be followed by a five-year term 13 of supervised release. Petitioner was apparently released from prison and 14 commenced his supervised release in or about 2016. 15 In October 2018, petitioner committed and was charged with second degree 16 armed robbery in the State Case. In July 2019, petitioner pleaded guilty to second 17 degree robbery and was sentenced to a total of 25 years in state prison. 18 The docket for the Federal Criminal Case reflects three sealed entries 19 between November 13, 2018 and November 16, 2018 – approximately a month 20 after petitioner was charged in the State Case. The Petition suggests that such 21 sealed entries correspond to a supervised release violation petition/warrant. 22 /// 23 24 1The procedural history set forth in this section is derived from the Petition and supporting document and the public docket and court records in the following cases of which 25 this Court takes judicial notice: (1) Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. SA099236 (accessible via http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary) (“State Case”); and (2) United 26 States v. Phillips, CDCA Case No. 2:01-cr-00652-FMC (“Federal Criminal Case”). See Fed. R. 27 Evid. 201; Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2012) (court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record including documents on file in federal or 28 state courts). 2 1 | // DISCUSSION 3 A state prisoner may obtain federal habeas relief “only on the ground that he 4 || is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 5 || States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). As petitioner neither asserts nor demonstrates that 6 || he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 7 || States, the Petition and this action should be dismissed without prejudice to 8 || petitioner’s ability to seek dismissal of any supervised release violation 9 || petition/warrant or removal of a related detainer in the Federal Criminal Case. 10 First, as petitioner apparently recognizes, he has no federal constitutional 11 || right to resolution of any pending federal supervised release violation petition at 12 || this yuncture. See Petition at 5 (acknowledging federal supervised release violation 13 || may not be resolved until completion of petitioner’s state sentence). There is no 14 || Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial in supervised release revocation 15 | proceedings. United States v. Gavilanes-Ocaranza, 772 F.3d 624, 628 (9th Cir. 16 || 2014), cert. denied, 577 U.S. 894 (2015). While a defendant does have a right to a 17 || reasonably prompt hearing on revocation of supervised release rooted in the Fifth 18 || Amendment’s Due Process Clause (id.; United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 19 | 1259 (9th Cir. 2008)), such right is not triggered until the violator is in custody on 20 || the violation warrant and is not triggered when such warrant is unexecuted and is 21 || merely placed as a detainer at an institution where the violator is already in custody 22 || serving a sentence for a crime committed while on supervised release. See Moody 23 || v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 86-89 (1979) (parole violation warrant); United States v. 24 || Bartholdi, 453 F.2d 1225, 1226 (9th Cir. 1972) (probation violation warrant);’ 25 || United States v. Magana-Colin, 359 Fed. Appx. 837, 838 (9th Cir. 2009) 26 —— 27 “Although Moody and Bartholdi respectively involved a parole violation warrant and a probation violation warrant, proceedings for revocation of probation, parole and supervised 28 |! release are treated as equivalents for due process purposes. Santana, 526 F.3d at 1259 n.2. 1 || (supervised release violation warrant), cert. denied, 560 U.S. 958 (2010). 2 Second, to the extent petitioner suggests that he is entitled to federal habeas 3 || relief due to the impact a detainer/pending supervised release violation petition/ 4 || warrant is assertedly having on his security level and the availability of certain 5 || educational and work programs, his claim is not cognizable on federal habeas 6 || review. Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to a particular security 7 || classification. Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987). Nor 8 || do they have a constitutional right to rehabilitation programs. Rizzo v. Dawson, 9 || 778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the deprivation of such matters 10 || would not violate the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, rendering 11 || petitioner unable to demonstrate that he is entitled to federal habeas relief due to 12 || being in custody in violation of the same. 13 ORDERS 14 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition and this action 15 || are dismissed without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner may be entitled in 16 || the Federal Criminal Case and that judgment be entered accordingly. 17 The Court also concludes that a certificate of appealability is unwarranted in 18 || this case because petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial 19 | of a constitutional right and, under the circumstances, jurists of reason would not 20 || disagree with the Court’s determination that the Petition should be summarily 21 || dismissed. Thus, a certificate of appealability is denied. 22 || DATED: December 17, 2020 23 [ GW ‘Y Ul 24 HONORABLE JOHN W. HOLCOMB 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 || Presented this 28th day of November 2020 by: 27 2g f——______/ 1 Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5