GREEN v. JENKINS II (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-16No. No. 21-55391

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed in part the district court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction over challenges to Green's conviction, sentence, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court dismissed in part the appeal regarding conditions at the original detention facility as moot following Green's transfer to another facility.

William John Green, a federal prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Green challenged both his conviction and sentence and the conditions of his confinement, including claims that the Bureau of Prisons violated his Eighth Amendment rights through mismanagement of COVID-19 and failure to address his medical needs while he was housed at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles.

The district court dismissed the petition, concluding it lacked jurisdiction over claims challenging the conviction and sentence, and that conditions-of-confinement claims were not cognizable in habeas. On appeal, Green argued the district court erred in declining jurisdiction over his Eighth Amendment claim. However, after Green filed his motion for reconsideration, he was transferred to a different facility better suited to his medical needs, rendering his original claim moot. The appellate court found the district court correctly lacked jurisdiction over the conviction and sentence challenges because they failed to satisfy the exception in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a district court has habeas jurisdiction over Eighth Amendment claims based on conditions of confinement at a specific facility
Whether conviction and sentence challenges are cognizable in a § 2241 habeas petition when they do not meet the § 2255(e) escape hatch
Mootness of conditions-of-confinement claims when a prisoner is transferred to a different facility

Procedural posture

Green appealed pro se from the district court's dismissal of his § 2241 habeas petition and denials of his motions for reconsideration and for release pending appeal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner William John Green appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, the order denying his motion for reconsideration, and the order denying his motion for release pending appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The district court dismissed Greens § 2241 habeas petition and denied reconsideration on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction over Greens claims challenging his conviction and sentence, and his claims challenging the conditions of his confinement were not cognizable in habeas. On appeal, Green contends that the district court erred by concluding that it lacked habeas jurisdiction over his claim that the Bureau of Prisons violated his Eighth Amendment rights by its alleged mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic and inability to care for his underlying health conditions. We need not resolve this issue because Greens Eighth Amendment claim is now moot. Greens claim was premised on conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center, Los Angeles (“MDC LA”), where he was housed when he filed his petition. After Green filed his motion for reconsideration, however, he was transferred to FCI Terminal Island, a facility that could better meet his medical needs. As a result, Greens claim for habeas relief premised on conditions at MDC LA is now moot, see Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995), and we must dismiss the appeal insofar as it challenges the district courts resolution of that claim. By this disposition, we express no opinion as to whether Green may file a § 2241 habeas petition seeking his immediate release based on conditions at FCI Terminal Island.

We further conclude that the district court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Greens challenges to his sentence and allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel because those claims did not meet the escape hatch of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). See Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2006).

In light of our disposition of this appeal, Greens challenge to the district courts order denying his Rule 23(b) motion is moot. Greens renewed request to this court for release pending appeal is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.