Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00809/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00809-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

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

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karl L. Guillen, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0809-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

Petitioner Karl L. Guillen, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex,

Special Management Unit I (SMU I), in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee.

(Doc.# 5.) Petitioner has filed a motion for status, which will be granted to the extent set

forth herein and otherwise denied. (Doc.# 6.) The Court will dismiss the Petition and this

action. 

I. Petition

Petitioner is an Arizona state inmate serving a 20-year sentence for second-degree

murder pursuant to a plea agreement entered in Pinal County Superior Court. See State v.

Guillen, No. 2-CA-CR 2009-0411-PR, 2010 WL 1511555 at *1 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 15,

2010). In the Petition in this case, Petitioner seeks relief concerning his conditions of

confinement, which he contends have caused an “aggregate change in duration of sentence.”

(Doc.# 1 at 1.) Petitioner names Charles Ryan, the Director of the Arizona State Department

Case 2:10-cv-00809-MHM--LOA Document 7 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 3
1

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

 1 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied to habeas corpus

petitions other than those brought under § 2254. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases.

- 2 -

of Corrections, as Respondent. 

II. Relief Pursuant to § 2241 is Unavailable for a State Conviction or Sentence

At the outset of a case, a district court must determine whether it has jurisdiction over

a petition filed by a prisoner under § 2241. Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir.

2006); Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, the Court must

undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether “it plainly appears from

the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in

the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243.1

If the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Id.;

Obremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming district court’s summary

dismissal as a matter of law, but relying upon Rule 4 rather than Rule 12(b)(6)).

Section 2254 is the exclusive avenue for a state court prisoner to challenge the

constitutionality of his detention, even when the petition only challenges the execution of the

sentence and not the underlying conviction itself. White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1005,

1009 (9th Cir. 2004) (adopting the majority view that distinguishes between a federal

prisoner’s ability to resort to § 2241 to attack the execution of a sentence and the structural

differences in the habeas statutes that make a state prisoner’s resort to § 2241 improper to

challenge the execution of a state sentence). Petitioner may not, therefore, obtain habeas

relief as to the execution of his Arizona state sentence under § 2241. Accordingly, to the

extent that Petitioner seeks relief pursuant to § 2241 as to his state conviction, his Petition

and this action will be summarily dismissed.

III. Failure to State a Cognizable Claim Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

Petitioner also fails to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief under § 2254. To seek

relief regarding conditions of confinement, Petitioner must file an action pursuant to 42

Case 2:10-cv-00809-MHM--LOA Document 7 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 3
1

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 - 3 -

U.S.C. § 1983; he may not seek such relief pursuant to habeas corpus. See Nelson v.

Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) (“constitutional claims that merely challenge the

conditions of a prisoner’s confinement, whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive

relief, fall outside [the] core [of habeas relief] and may be brought pursuant to § 1983”);

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (“Challenges to the validity of any

confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus . . . ;

requests for relief turning on the circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983

action.”); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (a civil rights action is the proper method to challenge conditions of

confinement)). Because Petitioner solely seeks relief as to the conditions of confinement,

he fails to state a cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2254. Accordingly, the Petition and

this action will be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable basis for habeas relief to the

extent that relief is sought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s motion for status is granted to the extent the status is set forth

herein and otherwise denied. (Doc.# 6.)

(2) Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is

denied and this action dismissed without leave to amend. (Doc.#1.) 

(3) The Clerk must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 9th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00809-MHM--LOA Document 7 Filed 07/14/10 Page 3 of 3