Davonte Williams-Dorsey v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaNovember 25, 20252:25-cv-11076California1,377 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. Discussion

A. Duty to Screen the Petition A habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the same screening requirements that apply to habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), Rule 1(b) (providing that district courts may apply the Habeas Rules to habeas petitions that are not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). Accordingly, a district court “must promptly examine” the petition and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the “judge must dismiss the petition.” Habeas Rule 4; Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App’x 843, 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 2241 petition). Habeas relief ordinarily is not available to challenge conditions of confinement. Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1065 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1382 (2024). The Court has reviewed the Petition under Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules and finds the Petition is subject to dismissal for the reasons explained…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.