Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cr-00553/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cr-00553-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Monte James Nottingham
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONTE JAMES NOTTINGHAM,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cr-00553-SI-1 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

MEDICAL TRANSFER

Re: Dkt. No. 15

Currently before the Court is defendant’s motion for medical transfer. Dkt. 15. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES defendant’s motion. 

BACKGROUND

Defendant Monte James Nottingham was released from the custody of the Bureau of 

Prisons (“BOP”), on September 1, 2014, after completing his term of imprisonment for bank 

robbery in case 09-CR-00218-SI-1. Dkt. 9 at 3. On September 2, 2014, Nottingham entered a 

Wells Fargo Bank on Montgomery Street in San Francisco and took $850 from a bank teller. Id. 

On September 4, 2014, he failed to report to U.S. Probation within 72 hours of his release. Id. at 

4. A warrant was issued for his arrest. Id. On September 7, 2014, Nottingham was arrested in 

Wisconsin by the Green Bay Police Department pursuant to this warrant. Id. 

Nottingham pled guilty to one count of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Dkt. 13 at 1. 

On February 6, 2015, Nottingham was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment, to run concurrent 

with his supervised release violation in case 09-CR-00218-SI-1, with a supervised release term of 

3 years. Id. at 2-3. In its sentencing remarks the Court recommended that Nottingham participate

in the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (“RDAP”), and be designated as soon as 

Case 3:14-cr-00553-SI Document 21 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

possible to a medical facility to address his medical needs. Id. On April 30, 2015, Nottingham

was committed to the custody of the BOP. Dkt. 17-1 at 2. He is currently a federal inmate at the 

Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Victorville, California. Id. 

On September 10, 2015, Nottingham filed a motion for medical transfer in his underlying 

criminal case. Dkt. 15. He requests “[t]ransfer . . . to a medical facility for surgery required.” Id. 

at 3. He states that his health has deteriorated “due to lack of medical treatment, or medication.” 

Id. at 2. He contends that his condition is “a violation of institutional rules and regulations,” as 

well as “cruel and unusual punishment,” “deliberate indifference,” and “premeditated delay in . . . 

[providing for his] medical needs.” Id. at 3. On October 1, 2015, the government filed a response 

to defendant’s motion for medical transfer, asking this Court to deny the motion based on lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Dkt. 

17 at 1. On November 10, 2015, Nottingham filed notice with this Court that the government had 

violated his due process rights by not responding to his motion.1 Dkt. 19.

DISCUSSION

Nottingham’s motion appears to challenge the conditions of his confinement. However, 

Nottingham has provided no jurisdictional basis upon which this Court can decide his motion. In 

order to have a Court decide the merits of his case, he must first exhaust his administrative 

remedies, then, if that fails, initiate an independent civil action either by petition for writ of habeas 

corpus or pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He cannot file such motions in his underlying criminal 

case.

I. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that 

“[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any 

other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until 

 

1

The Government promptly filed a proof of service demonstrating that Nottingham 

received actual or constructive notice of its response to his initial motion. See Dkt. 20.

Case 3:14-cr-00553-SI Document 21 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Although 

once within the discretion of the district court, exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a) is now mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002). All available remedies 

must now be exhausted; those remedies “need not meet federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, 

speedy, and effective.’” Id. (citation omitted). Simply put — exhaustion is a prerequisite to all 

inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, 

and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter, 534 U.S. at 532. 

Here, the record fails to demonstrate that Nottingham has attempted to access, much less

exhausted, his administrative remedies regarding his claims. Dkt. 17-1 at 2. He has not filed any 

requests for administrative remedy since his April 2015 arrival at FCI in Victorville. Id. He states 

he “[has] requested to know [his] medical status” and was told he was “scheduled to see a . . . 

orthopedic surgeon.” Dkt. 15 at 2. Further, on September 15, 2015, he requested his medical 

records, which he received that same day. Dkt. 17-1 at 2. 

Nottingham may not pursue either a petition for habeas corpus or a separate civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless and until he exhausts his administrative remedies.

II. Filing a New Civil Case

A federal inmate may move the court to review the manner, location, or execution of a 

sentence by petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. United States v. 

Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984); Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 

2000). Habeas corpus proceedings are characterized as civil in nature. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 

644 (2005). A court may entertain such petition on behalf of a federal inmate in United States

custody if the inmate is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the 

United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), but the inmate must lodge his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in 

the district court of the district in which the inmate is incarcerated. Giddings, 740 F.2d at 772;

Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1980). 

If Nottingham chooses to file for habeas corpus relief while he is confined in the FCI in 

Victorville, California, he cannot file his habeas petition in this Court. Rather, venue appears to 

Case 3:14-cr-00553-SI Document 21 Filed 11/30/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

be proper in the Central District of California, since the FCI in Victorville is located in the Central 

District. Dkt. 17-1 at 2. 

Additionally, where a federal inmate challenges the conditions of his confinement on 

constitutional grounds, his claims may be cognizable in a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). Should Nottingham pursue this method 

of relief, he may not file a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim in his underlying criminal action. He must file a 

new civil action alleging the grounds upon which he seeks relief.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion for medical transfer, 

Dkt. 15, and insofar as it can be construed as a motion, his subsequent notice to this Court that the 

government refuses to respond to him, Dkt. 19. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 30, 2015 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cr-00553-SI Document 21 Filed 11/30/15 Page 4 of 4