Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01619/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01619-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ponce
Respondent
Curtis Dane Sanders
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 

CURTIS DANE SANDERS,

Petitioner,

v.

FELICIA PONCE,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-1619 TLN CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The only remaining claim is that the classification score 

assigned to petitioner under Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5100.8 is too low. A 

classification score, in part, determines where federal prisoners such as petitioner will be housed. 

A higher score would allow petitioner to be housed at a lower security level prison. Respondent 

has filed a motion to dismiss arguing, among other things, that the court does not have 

jurisdiction to hear petitioner’s claim. Petitioner has filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. 

 “According to traditional interpretation, the writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks 

upon the legality or duration of confinement.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 

1979) citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-86 (1973). In this instance, petitioner fails 

to allege anything suggesting that a favorable decision on his habeas petition will result in, at 

minimum, a shorter sentence. Therefore, petitioner’s claim is not properly brought in a habeas 

Case 2:15-cv-01619-TLN-CKD Document 25 Filed 07/13/16 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

action. 

 As the court noted in an order dated September 2, 2015, Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 

861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) appears to lend support to the proposition that a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 need not necessarily be directed at the fact or duration of 

confinement: 

“Generally, motions to contest the legality of a sentence must be 

filed under [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 in the sentencing court, while 

petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a 

sentence’s execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the 

custodial court. See Doganiere v. United States, 914 F.2d 165, 169-

70 (9th Cir. 1990); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th 

Cir. 1980). 

 In Hernandez, the petitioner sought resentencing. Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864. Therefore, any 

statement made by the court in that case regarding habeas jurisdiction for claims which do not 

concern the fact or duration of confinement is dicta. Furthermore, Doganiere and Brown both 

concern challenges to parole proceedings and there is no language in either suggesting habeas 

jurisdiction should lie for claims where the fact or duration of confinement is not challenged. 

Finally, petitioner fails to point to a federal case where a prisoner was permitted to challenge his 

Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5100.8 classification score in order to obtain a 

transfer to a lower security prison through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

 The court notes that in his opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss, petitioner 

seemingly withdraws any request that he be transferred to a lower security prison. Instead, 

petitioner asks that “his points be corrected in accordance with the law . . .” ECF No. 24 at 7. 

Whether it is a transfer that petitioner ultimately seeks, or just a modification of his classification 

score, petitioner fails to establish any injury which is actionable in a habeas proceeding. 

 Finally, as respondent points out, the Supreme Court has specifically found that Congress 

has given federal prison officials full discretion with respect to classification of prisoners and 

prisoners have no statutory or Constitutional entitlement to invoke the protections of the Due 

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to classification decisions. Moody v. 

Dagget, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976). Therefore, even if the court had jurisdiction to consider 

petitioner’s claim regarding his classification score, petitioner has no basis for relief. 

Case 2:15-cv-01619-TLN-CKD Document 25 Filed 07/13/16 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

 For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23) be granted; 

 2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be 

dismissed; and

 3. This case be closed. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner 

may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of 

the judgment in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Any response to the objections shall be served 

and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure 

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: July 13, 2016 

1 

sand1619.2241

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-01619-TLN-CKD Document 25 Filed 07/13/16 Page 3 of 3