(HC) Zambrano v. Wolf ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCIAL BRAVO ZAMBRANO, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00595-DAD-JLT 12 Petitioners, 13 v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION AS TO PETITIONERS VILLALOBOS AND 14 CHAD F. WOLF, et al., SPITZAUER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICITON 15 Respondents. (Doc. No. 1) 16 17 18 19 Pending before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 2241 filed on behalf of petitioners Jorge Villalobos and Michael Spitzauer (“petitioners”). 21 (Doc. No. 1)1 The petition is based upon the risks to petitioners posed by the ongoing 22 coronavirus (“COVID-19”) outbreak. (Id.) For the reasons set forth below, the petition will be 23 dismissed, without prejudice, due to a lack of jurisdiction in this court. 24 ///// 25 1 Three petitioners initiated this case by filing a single petition with this court. (Doc. No. 1). 26 Pursuant to the joint stipulation filed by petitioner Marcial Bravo Zambrano and respondents 27 (Doc. No. 4), the court stayed this case to petitioner Zambrano only (Doc. No. 6). This order addresses the pending petition only as to petitioner Villalobos and petitioner Spitzauer; this order 28 does not impact the stay of this case as to petitioner Zambrano. 1 BACKGROUND 2 On April 24, 2020, petitioners filed the pending petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 3 (Doc. No. 1.) On May 11, 2020, respondents filed their response to the pending petition, and on 4 May 19, 2020, petitioners filed their reply thereto. (Doc. Nos. 5, 7.) 5 Petitioner Villalobos is a federal prisoner currently in the custody of the U.S. Bureau of 6 Prisons (“BOP”) and is serving a sentence imposed by the U.S. District Court for the Central 7 District of California in United States v. Villalobos, 2:17-cr-00329-R-1. (Doc. No. 5 at 1.) 8 Petitioner Villalobos is currently incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution North Lake 9 (“FCI-North Lake”), in Baldwin, Lake County, Michigan. (Doc. No. 7 at 3.) 10 Petitioner Spitzauer is a federal prisoner currently in the custody of the BOP and is 11 serving a sentence imposed by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in 12 United States v. Spitzauer, 2:13-cr-06071-SMJ-1. (Doc. No. 5 at 1.) Petitioner Spitzauer is 13 currently incarcerated at FCI-North Lake, in Baldwin, Lake County, Michigan. (Doc. No. 7 at 3.) 14 LEGAL STANDARD 15 “[A] habeas petition filed pursuant to § 2241 must be heard in the custodial court.” 16 Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that “motions to contest the 17 legality of a sentence must be filed under § 2255 in the sentencing court, while petitions that 18 challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution must be brought pursuant 19 to § 2241 in the custodial court”). 20 A petitioner must file a § 2241 petition in the district that has jurisdiction over the 21 petitioner’s custodian. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973); 22 Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008); Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 23 865 (9th Cir. 2000). For a § 2241 petitions, the proper district is the one with jurisdiction over the 24 warden of the facility where the petitioner is confined. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 25 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that “the proper respondent in a federal habeas corpus petition is 26 the petitioner’s ‘immediate custodian,’” which is “the person having a day-to-day control over the 27 prisoner”) (internal citations omitted) 28 ///// 1 ANALYSIS 2 Here, respondents argue that the pending § 2241 habeas petition should be dismissed for 3 lack of jurisdiction because petitioners are currently incarcerated at FCI-North Lake, which is 4 located within the Western District of Michigan, not within the Eastern District of California. 5 (Doc. No. 5 at 1.) Alternatively, respondents contend that the court should sever and transfer 6 petitioners’ habeas claims to the district courts that sentenced petitioners because the COVID-19 7 related relief sought is properly raised in the sentencing court. (Doc. No. 5 at 2–4). The 8 respondents argue that this court cannot simply construe the pending petition as a motion for 9 compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which must be filed in the sentencing 10 court, because this court would still lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ COVID-19-related claims 11 and requested relief. 12 In reply, petitioners do not address respondents’ arguments other than to “ask this Court to 13 take jurisdiction,” and stating that both petitioners “were initially housed at Taft Correctional 14 Institution in Taft, California, a facility whose jurisdiction falls within this court’s district.” (Doc. 15 No. 7 at 2, 4.) 16 The court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the pending petition as to petitioners 17 Villalobos and Spitzauer because they are no longer incarcerated in a facility located within the 18 Eastern District of California, and petitioners are not serving a sentence imposed by the U.S. 19 District Court for the Eastern District of California. However, the court finds that severing and 20 transferring each petitioners’ habeas claims is not feasible under these circumstances. In this 21 regard, it is not clear to the court, and petitioners did not clarify in their reply, whether petitioners 22 would wish to proceed with a § 2241 petition in the custodial court or with a § 3582 23 compassionate release motion in their respective sentencing courts. Moreover, the pending 24 petition does not address petitioners’ present conditions at FCI-North Lake or name the warden at 25 FCI-North Lake as a respondent. Rather, the allegations in the petition pertain to alleged 26 conditions at Taft Correctional Institution and name the Warden of Taft Correctional Institution 27 as a respondent and immediate custodian. (Doc. No. 1 at 10.) 28 ///// wOAOe UVES AR VR □□□ OG PIR ee AY Tt 1 Accordingly, the court will dismiss the pending § 2241 habeas petition as to petitioner 2 | Villalobos, without prejudice to petitioner’s refiling of a § 2241 petition in the custodial court, the 3 | US. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, or the filing of a motion for 4 | compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), in the sentencing court, the U.S. District 5 | Court for the Central District of California. 6 The court will also dismiss the pending § 2241 habeas petition as to petitioner Spitzauer, 7 | without prejudice to petitioner’s filing a § 2241 petition in the custodial court, the U.S. District 8 | Court for the Western District of Michigan, or the filing of a motion for compassionate release 9 | under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), in the sentencing court, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 10 | District of Washington. 11 CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons discussed above: 13 1. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) as to petitioner Villalobos is 14 dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction; 15 2. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) as to petitioner Spitzauer is 16 dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction; and 17 3. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) as to petitioner Zambrano 18 shall remain stayed. 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ | Dated: _ May 22, 2020 Yel A Load 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28