Case 2:22-cv-08804-VBF-PD Document 5 Filed 03/23/23 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:69

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICIO MARTINEZ MEDINA, Case No. 2:22-cv-08804-VBF-PD

12 Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING

13 v.

PETITION WITHOUT

14 BRIAN BIRKHOLZ, Warden, PREJUDICE 15 Respondent. 16

17 On December 5, 2022, Mauricio Martinez Medina (“Petitioner”), a 18 federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an “Emergency Motion Seeking 19 Immediate Release from the Bureau of Prisons and Termination of Sentence 20 Under 28 U. S. C. § 2241” (“Petition”). [Dkt. No. 1.]1 For the reasons set forth 21 below, the Petition is dismissed. 22 23

24 1 The Petition is 63 pages long and contains several exhibits, including Petitioner’s 25 release plans and medical records, custody classification form, sentence monitoring computation data, documents from the Lompoc Class Action Lawsuit, Torres, et al. v. 26 Milusnic, et al., 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVCx, documents from the ACLU, a news article regarding the ex-officer sentenced in the George Floyd case, and a copy of a 27 March 26, 2020 Memorandum from former Attorney General Barr regarding 28 prioritization of inmates to home confinement in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Case 2:22-cv-08804-VBF-PD Document 5 Filed 03/23/23 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:70

1 I. Background and Petitioner’s Contentions 2 Petitioner is presently housed at the Federal Correctional Institution at 3 Lompoc (“FCI Lompoc”), which is within the Central District of California. 4 [Dkt. No. 1.] He is serving a 240-month sentence for maritime drug offenses 5 that was imposed in 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern 6 District of Florida in the matter of United States v. Mauricio Martinez 7 Medina, 4:17-cr-10003-KMM.2 [Dkt. No. 1 at 3.]3 8 Petitioner alleges that he is a 43-year-old ex-smoker who has 9 hypertension. [Dkt. No. 1 at 3.] He alleges that his underlying health 10 conditions place him at high risk and make him vulnerable to COVID-19. 11 [Id.] Petitioner requests that the Court grant him immediate release from the 12 custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) based on the allegedly substandard 13 medical care and inadequate treatment at FCI-Lompoc; poorly trained 14 medical providers; conditions of confinement that violate the Fifth and Eighth 15 Amendments and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and 16 violate the Due Process Clause and international law; and, because the 17 Lompoc Class Action Lawsuit, Torres, et al. v. Milusnic, et al., 2:20-cv-04450- 18 CBM-PVCx, has not provided Petitioner with any relief from the 19 unconstitutional conditions of confinement.4 [Dkt. No. 1 at 2.] 20

21 2 Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court takes judicial 22 notice of the federal dockets and filings available through the PACER system. See also Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F. 3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that 23 a court may take judicial notice of court records).

24 3 The Court uses the page numbers inserted on the pleadings by the electronic 25 docketing system.

26 4 On May 16, 2020, a class of inmates medically vulnerable to severe illness or death from COVID-19 at FCC Lompoc brought an action against the Director of the 27 Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and the Warden of Lompoc. (Torres et al. v. Milusnic et 28 al., Case No. 20-4450-CBM-PVCx. [Dkt. No. 1.] The Complaint asserted two causes of action related to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. [Id.] On October 11,

2 Case 2:22-cv-08804-VBF-PD Document 5 Filed 03/23/23 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:71

1 According to public records, Petitioner’s projected release date is August 2 28, 2032. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, 3 https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc (accessed December 5, 2022). 4

II. Discussion

5 6 A. Duty to Screen the Petition 7 Summary dismissal of a federal habeas petition is required “[i]f it 8 plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 9 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4 of the Rules 10 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas 11 Rules”); see also Habeas Rule 1(b) (permitting district courts to apply 12 Habeas Rules to Section 2241 habeas proceedings); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. 13 App’x 843, 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court’s application of Habeas 14 Rule 4 to dismiss Section 2241 petition). Moreover, the Court must assess its 15 jurisdiction over a section 2241 petition “before proceeding to any other issue.” 16 Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000). 17 B. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over a Request for 18 Compassionate Release 19 Petitioner seeks immediate release from custody based on his medical 20 conditions and exposure to various health and safety risks including those 21 related to the COVID-19 pandemic. [Dkt. No. 1 at 2-4, 6.] Although the 22 Petition is labeled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 23 § 2241, to the extent that it is actually a disguised motion for compassionate 24 release, it is not properly before this Court. 25 26 2022, the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall approved the class action settlement. 27 [Dkt. No. 863.] The settlement requires FCC Lompoc to continue the home 28 confinement review process established by the preliminary injunction and follow guidelines to protect inmates from COVID-19. [Dkt. No. 863 at 8.]

3 Case 2:22-cv-08804-VBF-PD Document 5 Filed 03/23/23 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:72

1 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), all motions for sentencing reductions, 2 including motions for compassionate release, must be filed in the sentencing 3 court. See United States v. Ono, 72 F.3d 101, 102 (9th Cir. 1995) (a motion 4 under Section 3582(c) “is undoubtedly a step in the criminal case” that 5 “requires the [sentencing] court to reexamine the original sentence” (citation 6 omitted)); see also United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 595 (3d Cir. 2020) 7 (“Section 3582’s text requires those motions to be addressed to the 8 sentencing court, a point several Circuits have noted . . . .”); Bolden v. Ponce, 9 No. CV 20-3870-JFW (MAA), 2020 WL 2097751, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2020) 10 (district court lacks authority to grant release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) based on 11 conditions caused by COVID-19 pandemic because petition was not filed in 12 sentencing court); Mitchell v. Engleman, No. CV 21-06488-JWH (JEM), 2021 13 WL 4641945, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021) (same); Thody v. Swain, No. CV 14 19-09641-PA (DFM), 2019 WL 7842560, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2019) (“[B]y 15 its plain language, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires Petitioner to move for reduction in the sentencing court.”); Mohrbacher v. Ponce, No. CV 18-00513- 16 DMG (GJS), 2019 WL 161727, at *1 & n.1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019) (same). 17 As set forth above, Petitioner was sentenced in the Southern District of 18 Florida in United States v. Mauricio Martinez Medina, 4:17-cr-10003-KMM. 19 If Petitioner seeks compassionate release under Section 3582(c), he must 20 submit a motion to the sentencing court.5 21 C. Petitioner’s Claims Are Not Cognizable on Habeas Review 22 A habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is a vehicle for a 23 federal prisoner to challenge to the execution of his sentence. Hernandez, 204 24 F.3d at 864. Challenges to a prisoner’s conditions of confinement, however, 25 must be brought in a civil rights complaint rather than a habeas corpus 26

27 5 The Court takes judicial notice of the docket in the United States District Court for 28 the Southern District of Florida. To date, Petitioner has not filed a motion for compassionate release in the sentencing court.

4 Case 2:22-cv-08804-VBF-PD Document 5 Filed 03/23/23 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:73

1 petition. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Hill v. 2 McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (“[a]n inmate’s challenge to the 3 circumstances of his confinement” must be brought through a civil rights 4 action); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (“Challenges to the 5 validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the 6 province of habeas corpus . . . ; requests for relief turning on circumstances of 7 confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.”) (citation omitted). A civil 8 rights action is the “proper remedy” for a prisoner “who is making a 9 constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact 10 or length of his custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973). 11 “[C]onstitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions of a prisoner’s 12 confinement, whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive 13 relief, fall outside of that core [of habeas relief]” and, instead, should be 14 brought as a civil rights claim “in the first instance.” Nelson v. Campbell, 541 15 U.S. 637, 643 (2004). Since COVID-19 first appeared, prisoners have attempted to obtain 16 habeas relief based on the pandemic. When the Ninth Circuit was presented 17 with the issue of whether habeas relief is available for claims that COVID-19 18 conditions at federal prisons give rise to unconstitutional conditions of 19 confinement, it declined to resolve the issue. See Roman v. Wolf, 977 F.3d 935, 20 941-42 (9th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (“[T]he Government argues that a district 21 court on habeas review may not order reductions in the number of detainees 22 held at a facility, or any other injunctive relief, to remedy unconstitutional 23 conditions of confinement. We need not reach that issue ...”). 24 In the absence of Circuit precedent, most district courts within the 25 Ninth Circuit have concluded that such a claim is not cognizable in habeas 26 review even when the remedy sought is immediate release. See Camillo- 27 Amisano v. Ponce, 2021 WL 3377237, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 22, 2021) 28 (collecting cases); see also Wilson v. Ponce, 465 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1049 (C.D.

5 Case 2:22-cv-08804-VBF-PD Document 5 Filed 03/23/23 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:74

1 Cal. 2020) (the district court concluded that release based on COVID-19 was 2 not cognizable in habeas based on an extensive analysis of Supreme Court 3 cases and statutory analysis.); Bruno v. Warden, No. CV 20-6390 JFW (PVC), 4 2021 WL 2323941, at *6 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2021), report and recommendation 5 adopted, No. CV 20-6390 JFW (PVC), 2021 WL 2313657 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 6 2021) (acknowledging that “the majority of district courts within the Ninth 7 Circuit have . . . found that claims brought by federal prisoners or detainees 8 seeking release from custody due to the COVID-19 pandemic are not 9 cognizable on habeas review.”). Other district courts have found that COVID 10 conditions of confinement claims can be cognizable on habeas review. See, e.g., 11 Torres v. Milusnic, 472 F. Supp. 3d 713, 724-26 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (finding that 12 petitioner’s COVID-related claim challenged “fact of confinement” for habeas 13 purposes). 14 The Court finds the cases concluding that habeas review is not available 15 to conditions of confinement claims based upon the COVID-19 pandemic to be more persuasive. Here, Petitioner’s claims are based on the alleged failure to 16 provide him with adequate medical treatment and take certain health and 17 safety precautions related to preventing the risk of contracting COVID-19 at 18 FCI Lompoc. [Dkt. No. 1 at 2-4.] These are classic conditions of confinement 19 claims that do not implicate the fact or duration of Petitioner’s confinement 20 despite his requested remedy of release from custody. As such, his allegations 21 sound in civil rights, not in habeas, and the Court declines to exercise its 22 discretion to construe the Petition as a civil rights complaint. Bolden, 2020 23 WL 2097751, at *2 & n.1; accord Smith v. Von Blanckensee, No. CV 20-4642- 24 JVS (JEM), 2020 WL 4370954, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 2, 2020). If Petitioner 25 seeks to challenge his conditions of confinement or seeks damages for civil 26 rights violations, his claims are properly brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six 27 Unknown Named of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 28

6 Case 2:22-cv-08804-VBF-PD Document 5 Filed 03/23/23 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:75

1 III. III. ORDER 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without 3 prejudice. 4 5 DATED: March 23, 2023 /s/ Valerie Baker Fairbank 6

HON. VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

7