Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02053/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02053-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Hartvigsen
Petitioner
Bruno Stolc
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 RRCC is a private prison facility operated by Corrections Corporation of America

(CCA).

 2

 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of documents filed in this case.

 3

 Petitioner filed another habeas action pursuant to § 2241 contemporaneous with this

case. See Hartvigsen v. Stolc, No. CV09-2047-PHX-MHM. He has also previously filed

habeas petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this District. See Hartvigsen v. Crandell,

No. CV96-1139-PHX-ROS and (transferred to the District of Alaska); Hartvigsen v. Stolc,

No. CV08-0407-PHX-MHM (transferred to the District of Alaska); Hartvigsen v. Stolc,

No. CV08-0408-PHX-MHM (transferred to District of Alaska). 

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark Hartvigsen, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Bruno Stolc, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2053-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner Mark Hartvigsen, who is currently confined in the Red Rock Correctional

Center (RRCC)1

 in Eloy, Arizona, has filed a pro se “Petition for 28 USCS § 2241 Habeas

Corpus Relief” naming RRCC Warden Bruno Stolc as Respondent. (Doc.# 1.)2

 Petitioner

has paid the $5.00 filing fee. (Id.) Petitioner has also filed a motion for appointment of

counsel and an “Emergency Motion for Restraining Order” to prevent his transfer to any

third party, including the Alaska Department of Corrections. (Doc.# 3, 5.) The Court will

summarily dismiss this action and deny Petitioner’s motions.3

Case 2:09-cv-02053-MHM--MEA Document 6 Filed 11/20/09 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 4

 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied to habeas corpus

petitions other than those brought under § 2254. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section

- 2 -

I. Background

Petitioner was convicted of one count of first degree sexual abuse of a minor in Alaska

state court for which he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Hartvigsen v. State, Nos. A6838, 4215, 2000 WL 632453 (Alaska App. May 17, 2000); see Hartvigsen v. State, No. A8340, 2003 WL 21279444 (Alaska App. June 4, 2003). Petitioner’s direct appeal was denied

by the Alaska Court of Appeals. Id. 

II. Petition

Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to release from RRCC because it is a private prison

facility outside Alaska, where he was convicted and sentenced. He contends that he is

imprisoned by Respondent as the result of an arbitrary decision by Alaska Department of

Corrections officials. He further contends that neither Stolc nor CCA possess lawful

authority to imprison him and that Alaska officials are prohibited from contracting with an

“agency” unable to provide a degree of care, custody, and discipline required under Alaska

state law. Petitioner seeks:

immediate and unconditional release from confinement on the grounds that the

decision to effect unlawful execution of sentence was deliberately wrongful

conduct by AK DOC officials constituting the functional equivalent of (1)

commutation of sentence and any consequences of said sentence, (2) full

pardon from conviction and sentence of case 3KN-S89-174 cr.; and the act of

effecting unlawful execution of sentence caused irrevocable harm by denying

[him] a fair opportunity to challenge [his] state convictions on direct appeal.

(Doc.# 1 at 4.) 

III. Relief Pursuant to § 2241 is Unavailable for a State Conviction or Sentence

At the outset of a case, a district court must determine whether it has jurisdiction over

a petition filed by a prisoner under § 2241. Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir.

2006); Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, the Court must

undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether “it plainly appears from

the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in

the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243.4

Case 2:09-cv-02053-MHM--MEA Document 6 Filed 11/20/09 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

2254 Cases.

- 3 -

If the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Id.;

Obremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming district court’s summary

dismissal as a matter of law, but relying upon Rule 4 rather than Rule 12(b)(6)).

Section 2254 is the exclusive avenue for a state court prisoner to challenge the

constitutionality of his detention, even when the petition only challenges the execution of the

sentence and not the underlying conviction itself. White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1005,

1009 (9th Cir. 2004) (adopting the majority view that distinguishes between a federal

prisoner’s ability to resort to § 2241 to attack the execution of a sentence and the structural

differences in the habeas statutes that make a state prisoner’s resort to § 2241 improper to

challenge the execution of a state sentence). Petitioner may not, therefore, obtain habeas

relief as to the execution of his Alaska state sentence under § 2241. Accordingly, this action

will be summarily dismissed and Petitioner’s motions denied. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The motions for a restraining order and to appoint counsel are denied. (Doc.#

3, 5.) 

(2) The Petition and this action are summarily dismissed. (Doc.# 1.)

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 18th day of November, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-02053-MHM--MEA Document 6 Filed 11/20/09 Page 3 of 3