KOGIANES v. JENSEN (2021)

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

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's order dismissing the § 2241 petition and denying reconsideration was affirmed.

Two Arizona state prisoners filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging their parole denials and the procedures used in those denials. The district court dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration. The appellate court found the dismissal proper because prisoners in state custody must pursue habeas relief under § 2254, not § 2241, and the prisoners' reliance on other statutory authorities was misplaced.

The court determined that the federal provisions the prisoners cited—relating to inmate release and the CARES Act—apply only to federal prisoners, not state prisoners. Additionally, the court held that any Eighth Amendment claims about prison conditions cannot be brought in habeas but must instead be pursued as civil rights actions. The court therefore upheld the district court's dismissal on procedural and jurisdictional grounds.

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

Key issues

Whether state prisoners may use § 2241 to challenge parole denials
Applicability of federal release statutes to state prisoners
Proper forum for Eighth Amendment prison condition claims

Procedural posture

State prisoners appealed pro se from the district court's dismissal of their § 2241 habeas petition and denial of a 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).