Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01758/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01758-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Felicia Ponce
Respondent
Joe Lenzie Turner
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

JOE LENZIE TURNER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

FELICIA PONCE, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-01758-GGH 

ORDER 

 Petitioner has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2241, and paid the requisite filing fee. On October 7, 2015, the court ordered petitioner to show 

cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to show he is entitled to relief. ECF 

No. 7. The court explained that the petition seemed to allege petitioner’s custody classification 

score was miscalculated, “adversely affect[ing] [his] custody level, housing, work assignments, 

level of supervision[,] and eligibility for desirable activities.” Id. at 2 (citing ECF No. 1 at 

Exhibit B). Such claims do not entitle petitioner to relief under § 2241 because they do not 

challenge the fact or duration of confinement. See, e.g., Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 

(1973). On November 2, 2015, petitioner submitted a response to the court’s order to show cause 

explaining that his petition is, in fact, meant to challenge the duration of his confinement. ECF 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-01758-GGH Document 10 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 2
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

No. 8.1 Petitioner contends that a prior state court conviction was improperly considered a prior 

sentence for purposes of calculating his criminal history points, delaying his projected release 

date. Id. at 1–2, 9–11. 

Since petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of 

constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be directed to file an answer or a motion to 

dismiss. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The court’s October 7, 2015, order to show cause, ECF No. 7, is hereby discharged. 

2. Respondent is directed to file an answer or a motion to dismiss within sixty (60) days 

from the date of this order. If an answer is filed, respondent shall include with the answer any 

and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the 

application. 

 3. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty (30) days from the date 

respondent’s answer is filed; an opposition to a motion to dismiss is due within thirty days of 

service of the motion to dismiss. 

Dated: November 10, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

/GGH17;turn1758.100

 

1

 Petitioner submitted a second response on November 5, 2015, that mirrors the first. ECF No. 9. 

Case 2:15-cv-01758-GGH Document 10 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 2