Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00600-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN A. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MATEVOUSIAN,

Respondent.

No. 1:15-cv-00600-DAD-MJS

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS AND TO DENY MOTIONS FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; ORDER GRANTING 

LEAVE TO AMEND PETITION; AND 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 27, 36, 38, 42)

Petitioner Steven A. Johnson is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his pending petition, 

petitioner challenges: (1) his placement in the Special Housing Unit (“SHU”) at USP Atwater; (2) 

the failure of prison officials to provide petitioner with his personal property, including legal 

materials; (3) the denial by prison officials of petitioner’s requests to send legal mail; and (4) the 

failure by prison officials to protect petitioner from assault by other inmates. (Doc. No. 1.) 

Additionally, in his proposed first amended petition, petitioner also alleges violation of his: (5) 

First Amendment right to access to the courts; (6) Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel 

and unusual punishment; and (7) Fourteenth Amendment rights for deprivation of his human 

Case 1:15-cv-00600-DAD-MJS Document 45 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 7
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

2

needs. (Doc. No. 20.) According to petitioner, he has been confined in the SHU for over a year 

and without an initial indication as to the duration of that confinement. (See Doc. No. 1 at 6.) 

Petitioner seeks, among other remedies, a change to his conditions of confinement and to be 

transferred to a different prison. (Id.)

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On March 7, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. (Doc. No. 38.) The 

magistrate judge concluded that this court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner’s claims because the 

petition does not challenge the fact or duration of petitioner’s confinement. (Id.) Additionally, 

the magistrate judge recommended that petitioner’s motions to amend his petition (see Doc. Nos. 

18–19) be granted, but that his first amended petition also be dismissed for failure to present 

claims over which this court may exercise habeas jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 38 at 7.) Finally, the 

magistrate judge recommended that petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief (see Doc. Nos. 27, 

36) be denied. (Doc. No. 38 at 7.) The findings and recommendations were served on all parties 

with notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days of the date of service 

of the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 7–8.) Petitioner objected to the findings and 

recommendations on March 17, 2016. (Doc. No. 39.) Separately, on July 25, 2016, petitioner 

filed a motion for default judgment. (Doc. No. 42.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case and has carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 

objections. For the reasons stated below, the court will adopt the March 7, 2016 findings and 

recommendations in part.

DISCUSSION

A. The District Court’s Jurisdiction Over Habeas Corpus Petitions

In the findings and recommendations, the assigned magistrate judge concluded that the 

pending petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), and petitioner’s contemplated first 

amended petition (see Doc. Nos. 18–20), fail to state a cognizable bases for relief under 28 U.S.C. 

/////

Case 1:15-cv-00600-DAD-MJS Document 45 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 7
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

§ 2241 because they do not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. (Doc. No. 38 at 2–

7.) 

A federal prisoner seeking to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement must 

generally do so under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2012); 

Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006). Under the one recognized exception to 

this general rule, the so-called “escape hatch” of § 2255, a federal prisoner may seek habeas relief 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, if and only if his remedy under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to 

test the legality of his detention.” Stephens, 464 F.3d at 897; see also Hernandez v. Campbell, 

204 F.3d 861, 864–65 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that although a federal prisoner challenging the 

validity or constitutionality of his conviction must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions 

of the execution of a sentence must instead bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241). Under § 2241, habeas corpus relief is available if the federal prisoner can show 

he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1) & (3). 

1. Challenges to Conditions of Confinement

Here, nearly all of the claims in petitioner’s original and first amended petitions—that 

prison officials failed to provide him access to personal property, legal materials, and mail; failed 

to protect him from another inmate; denied him access to the courts; subjected him to cruel and

unusual punishment; and deprived him of his human needs—constitute challenges to the 

conditions of his confinement. Petitioner is advised that a civil rights action, not a habeas corpus 

proceeding, is the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to challenge the conditions of his 

confinement. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 

U.S. 388 (1971); see, e.g., Nostratis v. Surgue, No. 1:09-cv-00126-GSA, 2009 WL 462732 at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2009) (petitioner’s claim that he should be transferred to another facility 

should be raised in a Bivens action not a § 2241 habeas corpus proceeding); Evans v. U.S. 

Penitentiary, No. 1:07-cv-01611-OWW-GSA, 2007 WL 4212339 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2007) 

(petitioner not entitled to habeas corpus relief under § 2241 because his claims regarding a recent 

Case 1:15-cv-00600-DAD-MJS Document 45 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 7
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

4

transfer and inadequate medical care concern conditions of his confinement); Blow v. Bureau of 

Prisons, No. 1:07-cv-1119-OWW-NEW (DLB), 2007 WL 2403561 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 

2007) (habeas corpus relief under § 2241 does not extend to petitioner’s requests for a transfer to 

another facility and access to the law library because they concern conditions of his confinement); 

Wilson v. Wrigley, No. CIV 1:07-cv-00142-LJO-DLB, 2007 WL 1378024 at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 

10, 2007) (petitioner not entitled to habeas corpus relief under § 2241 because his request to be 

transferred to a different institution does not impact the duration of his confinement). Cf. Badea 

v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (state prisoners should challenge conditions of 

confinement in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 not in a habeas corpus proceeding). 

Thus, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that such challenges to petitioner’s conditions of 

confinement are properly brought, if at all, through a civil rights action. Accordingly, petitioner’s 

original and amended petitions will be dismissed with respect to these claims without prejudice to

his filing of a Bivens civil rights action.

2. Challenges Seeking a Change in the Level of Confinement

During the course of this case, however, there has been some confusion about whether this 

court has jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition seeking a quantum change in the level of 

confinement—e.g., where a prisoner seeks release from the SHU to the general population. On 

June 18, 2015, the magistrate judge withdrew his initial findings and recommendations with 

regard to the petition, and concluded that petitioner might state a cognizable basis for habeas 

relief based on the contention that he was seeking a quantum change in the level of his 

confinement, in view of the then recent Ninth Circuit panel decision in Nettles v. Grounds

(“Nettles I”), 788 F.3d 992, 996 (9th Cir. 2015). (Doc. No. 16.) On January 20, 2016, the Ninth 

Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc and to vacate the panel opinion in Nettles I. Nettles v. 

Grounds, 810 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2016). Thereafter and as a result, the magistrate judge 

recommended dismissing the petition pending before the court in this case entirely for lack of 

jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 38 at 2.) Since the issuance of the March 7, 2016 findings and 

recommendations, however, the Ninth Circuit has reheard the Nettles case en banc. See Nettles v. 

Grounds (“Nettles II”), 830 F.3d 922, 924 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, ___U.S.___, No. 16-

Case 1:15-cv-00600-DAD-MJS Document 45 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 7
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

5

6556, 2017 WL 69407 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2017). In Nettles II, the Ninth Circuit held that “if a state 

prisoner’s claim does not lie at the core of habeas corpus . . . it may not be brought in habeas 

corpus but must be brought, if at all, under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983.” 830 F.3d at 931 (citations and 

internal quotations omitted). Because the petitioner in Nettles was a state prisoner, the majority 

explicitly declined to extend its holding to relief sought by prisoners in federal custody. Id.; see 

also id. at 945–46 (Berzon, J., dissenting) (noting that the majority holding does not apply to 

claims by federal prisoners petitioning under § 2241). 

In contrast to the holding in Nettles II, several recent Ninth Circuit decisions suggest that 

the scope of habeas relief available to federal prisoners remains broader than is available to those 

in state custody. For instance, in Crickon v. Thomas, 579 F.3d 978, 982 (9th Cir. 2009), a 

prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) filed a habeas petition under 

§ 2241 challenging the BOP’s determination that he was categorically ineligible for an early 

release incentives through the BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”) due to the 

nature of his underlying conviction. The Ninth Circuit held that the BOP’s alleged failure to 

articulate the basis for its rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and ordered the BOP to 

reconsider the prisoner’s eligibility for the early release incentive. Id. at 988–89. In Reeb v. 

Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1228 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit held that federal courts lack 

jurisdiction under § 2241 to review the BOP’s individualized determinations of eligibility under 

RDAP, but noted that judicial review “remains available for allegations that BOP action is 

contrary to established federal law, violates the United States Constitution, or exceeds its 

statutory authority.” See also Close v. Thomas, 653 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (recognizing

that a challenge to the BOP’s system of ranking RDAP-eligible inmates on a wait list is within the 

court’s habeas jurisdiction). Finally, in Rodriguez v. Copenhaver, 823 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 

2016), a federal prisoner challenged a BOP determination regarding his placement under 18 

U.S.C. § 3621. The Ninth Circuit held that even though such a determination was discretionary, 

it may still be challenged on the basis that the BOP violated the Constitution or exceeded its 

statutory authority pursuant to § 3621. Id.

/////

Case 1:15-cv-00600-DAD-MJS Document 45 Filed 02/02/17 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has previously recognized that a prisoner may properly seek 

habeas relief from “the imposition of disciplinary sanctions involving forfeiture of statutory good 

time or segregation from the general prison population.” See Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 

1269 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Nettles II, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016); cf.

Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1991) (“If the prisoner is seeking what can fairly 

be described as a quantum change in the level of custody—whether outright freedom, or freedom 

subject to the limited reporting and financial constraints of bond or parole or probation, or the run 

of the prison in contrast to the approximation to solitary confinement that is disciplinary 

segregation—then habeas corpus is his remedy.”).1 

Here, it is unclear whether petitioner Johnson is alleging a cognizable basis for relief 

under § 2241. In his pending petition he alleges that he has been confined in the SHU for over a 

year, but has not alleged facts regarding the nature of the placement determination. It remains

unclear whether petitioner is alleging that prison officials made this determination in violation of 

the Constitution or their authority under federal statutes. Consequently, the pending habeas 

corpus petition should be dismissed for failure to adequately state a basis for habeas relief. 

However, because amendment would not necessarily be futile, the court will grant petitioner 

leave to amend his petition brought under § 2241 with respect to his placement in the SHU.2 

B. Injunctive Relief

With respect to the magistrate judge’s conclusions regarding petitioner’s motions for 

injunctive relief (see Doc. Nos. 27, 36), the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

 

1

 Where, for example, a prisoner challenges the loss of good-time credits or placement in solitary 

confinement as a result of a disciplinary hearing, the prisoner is entitled to the following 

procedural safeguards: (1) advanced written notice of the claimed violation at least twenty-four 

hours before the hearing, (2) a written statement of fact findings as to the evidence relied upon 

and reasons for the actions taken, and (3) a right to call witnesses and present documentary 

evidence where such would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals. 

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563–66 (1974).

2

The court notes that since the filing of his original petition, petitioner appears to have been 

transferred to at least two other federal facilities. (See Doc. Nos. 30, 35.) Thus, it remains 

unclear whether petitioner continues to be placed in segregated housing or whether any potential 

habeas claim has been rendered moot.

Case 1:15-cv-00600-DAD-MJS Document 45 Filed 02/02/17 Page 6 of 7
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

7

supported by the record and proper analysis. (See Doc. No. 38 at 7.) 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, 

1. The March 7, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 38) are adopted in part, 

consistent with the reasons set forth above;

2. Petitioner’s motions to amend his petition (Doc. Nos. 18, 19) are granted;

3. The original and amended petitions for writ of habeas corpus are dismissed with 

respect to petitioner’s conditions of confinement claims without prejudice to his filing 

of a Bivens civil rights action; 

4. Petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 27, 36) are denied;

5. Petitioner’s motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 42) is denied as having been 

rendered moot by this order; 

6. Petitioner is granted leave to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, within 

thirty (30) days of service of this order, with respect to prison officials’ decision to 

place him in the SHU and his seeking of a quantum change in the level of his 

confinement;

7. Failure to file an amended petition may result in dismissal of this habeas action; and

8. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 

consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00600-DAD-MJS Document 45 Filed 02/02/17 Page 7 of 7