01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

1

 Petitioner indicates in his petition that he is currently a “Compact Boarder” in the State

of Nevada.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICHARD CARMICHAEL,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

Respondents.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0160-JLR

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner is a prisoner at the Ely State Prison in Ely, Nevada.1

 He has filed a petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner identifies his 1987 Snohomish

Superior Court convictions on charges of first degree kidnaping and escape as the convictions

under attack in the instant federal habeas action. However, petitioner asserts in his petition, and

in his supporting memorandum, that he is not seeking to challenge his convictions. Rather,

petitioner asserts, he is seeking to challenge Washington State statute of limitations and speedy

trial provisions as they are applied to Washington prisoners who are housed outside the State

pursuant to the Western Interstate Corrections Compact, RCW 72.70.010, or the Interstate

Case 2:06-cv-00160-JLR Document 5 Filed 02/27/06 Page 1 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PAGE -2

Corrections Compact, RCW 72.74.020.

Despite petitioner’s assertion that he is not seeking to challenge his 1987 Snohomish

County Superior Court convictions in these proceedings, there is no other reasonable way to

construe the instant petition. If petitioner were to prevail on the claims raised in the instant

petition, it would undermine the validity of the Snohomish County judgment and sentence

pursuant to which he is currently incarcerated. The Ninth Circuit has held that 28 U.S.C. § 2254

is the exclusive avenue for a state court prisoner to challenge the constitutionality of his

detention. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, petitioner’s

§ 2241 petition is properly construed as one brought pursuant to § 2254.

A review of this court’s records reveals that this is the second federal habeas petition filed

by petitioner in recent months challenging the same Snohomish County convictions. See

Carmichael v. Washington, Case No. C05-2076-RSM-MAT. Petitioner filed both petitions under

§ 2241. An Order was recently issued in Case No. C05-2076-RSM-MAT construing the petition

filed therein as one filed pursuant to § 2254, and granting petitioner leave to amend the petition

to name a proper respondent.

Given that petitioner currently has a § 2254 action proceeding in this Court with respect

to his 1987 Snohomish County convictions, the instant action is duplicative. Allowing plaintiff

to proceed with both actions at the same time would be inefficient and would violate the limit

of one habeas petition per conviction imposed by Congress. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244. If petitioner

wishes to pursue the claims set forth in the instant habeas petition, he may do so by simply

amending his petition in his other cause number, C05-2076-RSM-MAT.

Accordingly, the instant habeas action is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to send a

copy of this Order to petitioner and to the Honorable Mary Alice Theiler.

Case 2:06-cv-00160-JLR Document 5 Filed 02/27/06 Page 2 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PAGE -3

DATED this 27th day of February, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Recommended for Entry this

 27th day of February, 2006.

s/ Mary Alice Theiler 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00160-JLR Document 5 Filed 02/27/06 Page 3 of 3