Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00814/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00814-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Bazley
Petitioner
Rick Hill
Respondent

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 

MICHAEL BAZLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RICK HILL, Warden, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-0814 AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a California state prisoner at the time he filed this action, proceeds pro se and 

seeks relief from his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The habeas petition presents a single 

claim: that petitioner’s three-year sentence for identity theft was improperly “enhanced” on the 

basis of a constitutionally infirm prior conviction. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. Petitioner expressly 

challenges his sentence only, and not the underlying Sacramento County conviction. Id. at 1. 

Respondent has answered, ECF No. 18, and petitioner filed a response, ECF No. 21. 

 The court has an obligation to examine its jurisdiction, and may raise the issue sua sponte. 

Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). Federal habeas jurisdiction lies for 

constitutional challenges to the fact or duration of a state prisoner’s confinement. Preiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-88, 490 (1973); Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2010); Young 

v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1126 (1991). Habeas 

jurisdiction is absent where a prisoner challenges a condition of confinement that does not 

Case 2:13-cv-00814-TLN-AC Document 25 Filed 02/02/15 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

directly implicate the duration of the sentence. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 

2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1063 (2004). 

In this case, the allegedly invalid prior conviction was not used as a sentencing 

enhancement in the end, and thus had no direct effect on the three-year term of imprisonment to 

which petitioner was sentenced.1 Petitioner challenges not the length the sentence imposed but 

that fact that he was ordered to serve it in state prison rather than in county jail pursuant to the 

“realignment” statute. ECF No. 1 (petition) at 4. This court accordingly may lack jurisdiction to 

entertain the petition. If so, the court may not consider the merits of the claim, and it also may be 

unnecessary to reach the various bars to relief asserted in the answer. However, petitioner 

appears to allege that if he had been permitted to serve his sentence in a county jail facility he 

would not have been subject to a term of parole supervision following his release from custody. 

Id. at 5. The undersigned is unable to determine from the pleadings whether petitioner’s 

ineligibility for county jail custody had a necessary effect on the actual duration of his 

confinement or on the total period of time during which he was (or is) under sentence. 

Accordingly, Respondent is HEREBY ORDERED to file a letter brief not exceeding three 

pages in length, within 14 days, addressing the effect, if any, of petitioner’s commitment to state 

prison rather than county jail on (a) the amount of time spent in custody, and (b) the amount of 

time spent under continuing criminal sentence following release, with or without active 

supervision. Petitioner may file a reply within 14 days of service with Respondent’s letter brief. 

DATED: January 30, 2015 

 

1

 See RT 1-4 (change of plea), 9A (sentencing); CT 72 (abstract of judgment). 

Case 2:13-cv-00814-TLN-AC Document 25 Filed 02/02/15 Page 2 of 2