KOGIANES v. JENSEN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-28No. No. 21-15152

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the § 2241 habeas petition, holding that state prisoners challenging custody pursuant to state court judgments must proceed under § 2254, that federal release statutes do not extend to state prisoners, and that Eighth Amendment claims challenging prison conditions must be brought under § 1983 rather than in habeas.

Two Arizona state prisoners filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, raising due process challenges to their parole denials and related procedures. The district court dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration, finding that state prisoners must use § 2254 rather than § 2241 to challenge custody based on state court judgments. The appellants also sought release under federal provisions and raised constitutional claims that the court determined were improperly brought in habeas rather than in a separate civil rights action.

The court concluded the district court properly dismissed the petition on multiple independent grounds. First, § 2241 is the wrong procedural vehicle for challenging state custody; § 2254 is the exclusive remedy. Second, the federal release authorities cited by the prisoners—a federal custody statute and the CARES Act—apply only to federal inmates and do not reach state prisoners. Third, the Eighth Amendment claims challenging prison conditions must be pursued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a civil rights suit, not as part of a habeas petition.

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

Key issues

Whether state prisoners may use 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge parole denials
Applicability of federal release statutes to state prisoners
Proper procedural mechanism for raising Eighth Amendment prison conditions claims

Procedural posture

State prisoners appealed pro se from a district court order dismissing their § 2241 habeas petition and denying their motion for reconsideration.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoners Michael George Kogianes and Cecil T. Kinkade appeal pro se from the district courts orders dismissing their 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and denying reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Appellants’ § 2241 petition alleged due process claims challenging their parole denials and the procedures for review thereof. The district court correctly determined that, because appellants were in custody pursuant to state court judgments, they must bring habeas petitions through 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not § 2241. White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Our decisions in Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2004), and Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 821 (9th Cir. 2009), do not change this result because, unlike appellants, Stow and Wilson brought double jeopardy challenges to charges in pending retrials.

See Wilson, 554 F.3d at 822-24; Stow, 389 F.3d at 885.

The district court also correctly determined that appellants cannot pursue their request for release under the authorities they invoke. The provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 60541(g)(5)(a) and the CARES Act apply only to inmates in federal custody, and thus do not extend to appellants. The Prison Litigation Reform Act permits the release of prisoners only after procedural steps that have not been completed in this case. See Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 512, 131 S.Ct. 1910, 179 L.Ed.2d 969 (2011) (discussing requirements found in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3626(a)(3)(A)-(C)). Finally, as the district court concluded, appellants’ Eighth Amendment claims must be raised in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that a state prisoners claims must lie at the core of habeas corpus to be raised in habeas, and claims challenging “any other aspect of prison life” must be raised in a § 1983 action).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. Insofar as a certificate of appealability is required for this claim, see Hayward, 603 F.3d at 554, overruled on other grounds by Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011), we treat the arguments raised in the opening brief as a request for such. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e). So treated, the request is denied because appellants have not shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).