Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-00324/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-00324-0/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 (Federal)

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN SANCHEZ ALANIS,

Petitioner,

v.

COPENHAVEN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-CV-1870-SMS

TRANSFER ORDER

Petitioner is a federal prisoner sentenced to a 108 month prison term for illegal reentry in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). On October 25, 2013, Petitioner filed the instant 

petition for writ of habeas corpus in propria persona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1.

FACTS

As of October 10, 2012, Petitioner was housed at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) 

at Yazoo City, Mississippi. On that date he appeared at a disciplinary hearing held before a 

Discipline Hearing Officer (“DHO”). Exhibits A, B, C, D; see 28 C.F.R. § 541.8 (hearing 

procedures). According to DHO reports prepared on November 30, 2012, Petitioner admitted to 

four charges regarding events occurring on June 30, 2012 (attempted assault), July 4, 2012 (two 

counts of assault), and August 20, 2012 (damaging a life safety device), all occurring at FCI Yazoo 

City. Id.

Under BOP regulations, each of these offenses was considered a “high severity level 

offense.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.3; cf. § 541.4(b)(2) (mandatory penalty for individuals sentenced under 

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)); § 541.3 (maximum possible penalty); § 541.8 (g). For 

Case 4:14-cv-00324-RCC Document 11 Filed 01/09/14 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

2

each of these four charges, the DHO’s chosen sanction included “Disallowance Good Conduct 

Time: 27 Days.” Petitioner appealed the sentence administratively, arguing (then and now) that it is 

not lawful to deprive a prisoner of non-vested good credit time. Cf. Brown v. McGrew, 2013 WL 

6512948 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013) (discussing good time credit under PLRA); Rosa v. Grondolsky, 

2013 WL 3491077 (D. Mass. July 9, 2013) (same).

Relevant regulations governing administrative appeals appear at 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.13-18; 

see also Sejour v. Sanders, 2012 WL 1247185 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012) (discussing exhaustion 

requirement). Each report indicated that Respondent was “advised of his right to appeal this action 

within 20 calendar days under the Administrative Remedy Procedure,” and adds that “a copy of this 

report has been given to the inmate.” Id. The reports indicate that they were “Delivered to Inmate” 

on December 7, 2012. Id. From the attached exhibits, it appears that Plaintiff submitted a Regional 

Administrative Remedy Appeal on February 15, 2013. This was rejected by the Regional Director 

on March 7, 2013, though not as untimely, with guidance that further appeal could be obtained 

within 30 days from the Office of General Counsel, the highest level of administrative appeal. 

Petitioner did not file this appeal until May 23, 2013. Addressing his untimeliness, Petitioner stated 

that he did not receive the Regional Director’s response until March 19, 2013; that on March 20, 

2013 he was then transferred to the U.S. Penitentiary (“USP”) in Atwater, California; and that he 

did not receive his legal papers until May 14, 2013. Doc. 1-1 at 30.

On June 5, 2013, these appeals were rejected. The reason given was, “Your appeal is 

untimely.” Exhibit I (doc. 1-1 at 20). It also said, “Provide staff verification stating reason untimely 

filing was not your fault.” Petitioner did not do so. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.17.

On or about October 3, 2013, Petitioner was transferred to the USP in Tucson, Arizona. 

Doc. 10. On October 25, 2013 he filed this petition in the District Court for the District of 

Columbia, naming as defendant the warden at USP Atwater. Addressing the untimeliness issue, he 

attached a property sheet which, he claims, shows that he did not receive his property until May 16, 

2013. The property sheet bears a handwritten notation, “Issued [illegible] 5/16/13 /s/ Garza.” It also 

apparently bears the signature of Petitioner indicating that his property was returned to him on 

Case 4:14-cv-00324-RCC Document 11 Filed 01/09/14 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

April 30, 2013. On October 25, 2013, the D.C. District Court ordered the case transferred to this 

District.

DISCUSSION

Jurisdiction Over the Person

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) provides that writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the district 

courts “within their respective jurisdictions.” A writ of habeas corpus operates not upon the 

prisoner, but upon the prisoner's custodian. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 

U.S. 484, 494–495, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973). A petitioner filing a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus under § 2241 must file the petition in the judicial district of the Petitioner's 

custodian. Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir.1990). The warden of the 

penitentiary where a prisoner is confined constitutes the custodian who must be named in the 

petition, and the petition must be filed in the district of confinement. Id.; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 

U.S. 426, 446–47, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004). A failure to name and serve the 

custodian deprives the Court of personal jurisdiction. Johnson v. Reilly, 349 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th 

Cir.2003).

The D.C. District Court transferred Petitioner’s case to this District on the grounds that he 

was incarcerated at USP Atwater. However, the petition indicates that when Petitioner filed the 

case, he was a prisoner at USP Tucson. This case is therefore transferred to the District of Arizona, 

at which point the warden of USP Tucson may be substituted as the proper defendant pursuant to 

FRCP 25(d).

ORDER

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED transfer this case to the 

United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2014 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

icido34h

Case 4:14-cv-00324-RCC Document 11 Filed 01/09/14 Page 3 of 3