Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-03825/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-03825-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gaylene L. Bolanos
Petitioner
Jenkins
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAYLENE L. BOLANOS,

Petitioner,

v.

JENKINS,

Respondent.

Case No. 20-cv-03825-WHO (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Federal prisoner Gaylene L. Bolanos seeks release under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 from 

FCI-Dublin because she believes she is at high risk of contracting COVID-19 under her 

current conditions of confinement. Bolanos’s claims cannot proceed through a § 2241 

action. She must raise her compassionate release request in her criminal case in the 

Eastern District of California, where she was sentenced. Her conditions of confinement 

claims must be raised through a civil rights action, not through a habeas action.1 

Accordingly, this federal habeas corpus action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Bolanos is a 63-year-old female with various ailments 

(e.g., a heart-valve defect and high blood pressure) and is currently held at FCI-Dublin. 

In 2015, she was convicted in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of 

California on charges of conspiracy to defraud (18 U.S.C. § 286) and presenting a false 

1

In this regard, pending in this District is a certified class action concerning conditions at Santa 

Rita Jail, Babu v Ahern, 18-7677. It is not covid-specific but in light of her concerns Bolanos may 

wish to contact class counsel, Ernest Galvan and Kara Janssen at the Rosen Bien law firm, 101 

Mission St., 6th floor SF 94105-1738. 

Case 3:20-cv-03825-WHO Document 7 Filed 06/16/20 Page 1 of 5
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

claim to the government (18 U.S.C. § 287). Dkt. No. 556, Bolanos v. United States, No. 

1:13-CR-362 AWI BAM (E.D. Cal). A sentence of 120 months was imposed. (Id.) Her 

appeal to the Ninth Circuit was unsuccessful and the U.S. Supreme Court denied her 

petition for writ of certiorari. (Id.) 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus from a person claiming 

to be “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why 

the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or 

person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner Bolanos seeks § 2241 habeas relief under (i) 18 U.S.C. § 3582; (ii) the 

Equal Protection Clause; and (iii) United States Attorney General William Barr’s March 

and April 2020 memoranda to the Bureau of Prisons to release or transfer inmates prison 

authorities deem at-risk for contracting COVID-19 and who are otherwise suitable for such 

relief. As I explain below, I cannot act on her claims on this petition. Her request under § 

3582 must be brought in the court that sentenced her, which is in the Eastern District of 

California. And because she challenges the conditions of her confinement, I lack

jurisdiction over her habeas petition. 

i. 18 U.S.C. § 3582

Bolanos seeks compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. This claim needs to 

be filed in the district court in the Eastern District of California. See Bolden v. Ponce, No. 

2:20-cv-03870-JFW-MAA, 2020 WL 2097751, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2020) (citing 

United States v. Rala, 954 F.3d 594, 595 (3d Cir. 2020)) (“Section 3582’s text requires 

those motions to be addressed to the sentencing court, a point several Circuits have 

noted.”); cf. United States v. Ono, 72 F.3d 101, 102 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Because the purpose 

of a [section] 3582 motion is resentencing, a motion under [section] 3852(c) is 

Case 3:20-cv-03825-WHO Document 7 Filed 06/16/20 Page 2 of 5
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

undoubtedly ‘a step in the criminal case’”). See also United States v. Alexander, 951 F.3d 

706, 708 (6th Cir. 2019) (“The authority granted by the First Step Act is limited: ‘A court 

that imposed a sentence for a covered offense may . . . impose a reduced sentence.’”) 

(quoting The First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, §404(b), 132 Stat. 5194 (Dec. 21, 

2018)); and United States v. Smith, 896 F.3d 466, 473 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (noting that “a 

sentencing court” must decide “whether to grant a sentence reduction”).

Furthermore, “[d]istrict courts have no authority to reduce a federal inmate’s 

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) pursuant to federal habeas proceeding under 

28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Ray v. Finley, No. 3:19-CV-0988, 2019 WL 5569616, at *4 (M.D. Pa. 

Oct. 29, 2019); see also Rodriguez-Aguirre v. Hudgens, 739 F. App’x 489, 490-91 

(affirming dismissal of section 2241 petition for compassionate release because petitioner 

“did not challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence”); Himmel v. Upton, No. 4:18-

CV-804-O, 2019 WL 1112923, at *2-3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2019) (dismissing section 

2241 petition because compassionate release request for medical reasons does “not allege 

[petitioner] is in custody as a result of a constitutional violation”); Rowe v. Ortiz, No. 19-

17371, 2019 WL 5078727, at *2 (D. N.J. Oct. 10, 2019) (district court lacks jurisdiction on 

habeas review to modify a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582); Maestro v. Ives, No. CV 14-

1069 R (JC), 2014 WL 6389370, at *2 n.4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2014) (a “request for a 

reduced sentence [under § 3582(c)] is not cognizable on federal habeas review.”); Share v. 

Krueger, 553 F. App’x 207, 208-09 (3d Cir. 2014) (habeas petition under section 2241 is 

not appropriate vehicle to review denial of compassionate release).

Bolanos’s request for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 is DENIED. I 

lack jurisdiction to hear compassionate release claims brought under § 2241. Any such 

request must be brought in the United State District Court in the Eastern District of 

California where she was sentenced. She should file the motion in her criminal case, 

Bolanos v. United States, No. 1:13-CR-362 AWI BAM. 

ii., iii. Equal Protection and Barr’s Directive

Bolanos seeks relief based on the conditions of her confinement at FCI-Dublin. 

Case 3:20-cv-03825-WHO Document 7 Filed 06/16/20 Page 3 of 5
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

This is a civil rights claim, not a habeas claim. Although granting the relief of release is 

within the ambit of a habeas court, her claims are properly the subject of a civil rights 

complaint “[d]espite the relief” sought. Shook v. Apker, 472 F. App’x 702, 702-03 (9th 

Cir. 2012). See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (habeas corpus action 

proper mechanism for challenging an unlawful conviction or sentence; civil rights action 

proper method for challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 

891-892 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition on basis that 

challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought in civil rights 

complaint). The petition will be dismissed without prejudice to Bolanos filing a federal 

civil rights action. 

Bolanos is reminded that 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 such administrative remedies as are 

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). A federal prisoner accordingly must 

exhaust all available administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons before filing a 

federal civil rights claim in federal court. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 

(2002) (holding that revised § 1997e(a) applies to Bivens actions). There is a pending class 

action concerning the conditions of incarceration at Santa Rita, and as I stated in footnote 

one Bolanos may wish to contact class counsel with her concerns.

Case 3:20-cv-03825-WHO Document 7 Filed 06/16/20 Page 4 of 5
5

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

CONCLUSION

This federal habeas corpus action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Bolanos 

filing a request for compassionate release in the sentencing court and without prejudice to 

her filing a civil rights action after she has exhausted her administrative remedies. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2020

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-03825-WHO Document 7 Filed 06/16/20 Page 5 of 5