Michael D. Johnwell v. Luis Garnica

[7] 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 MICHAEL D. JOHNWELL, No. 2:25-CV-02738-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 LUIS GARNICA, 15 Respondent. [16] 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s original petition, 19 ECF No. 1. 20 Generally, a petitioner who wishes to challenge the legality of his conviction or 21 sentence must file a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (for state prisoners) or 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion 22 (for federal prisoners). See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 955 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing § 23 2255, and the “savings clause” or the “escape hatch”); Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th 24 Cir. 2001) (order) (stating that a § 2255 motion is used for challenging the legality of a 25 conviction); cf. McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822 , 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that § 2254 is 26 inapplicable where petitioner is not challenging legality of state court judgment). Generally, 27 “§ 2241 provides a general grant of habeas authority that is available for challenges by a state 28 prisoner who is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, such as a defendant in pretrial 1 detention.” Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Dominguez v. Kernan, [2] 906 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2018). Some examples of cases that should be filed under § 2241 3 rather than § 2254 or § 2255 include challenges to: (1) pretrial detention, see McNeely, 336 F.3d 4 at 824 n.1; (2) parole decisions, see Tyler v. United States, 929 F.2d 451 , 453 n.5 (9th Cir. 1991); 5 and (3) sentencing credits, see United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984). 6 In screening the habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , the court applies 7 the Rule 4 framework of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 8 Courts. See 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rule 4; see also Id., Rule 1(b) (“The district court may apply 9 any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by Rule 1(a).”). 10 Here, the petition does not contain a statement of facts to allow the Court to 11 determine whether he has stated a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief in violation of Rule 12 2(c) (1)-(3). Petitioner asserts that his claim is properly raised as §2241 (c)(3) because he is 13 challenging his detention based on “jurisdictional defects.” ECF No. 1, pg. 2. However, the 14 petition does not state what Petitioner was convicted of, where he was convicted, and does not 15 provide sufficient information to determine whether these allegations are suitable for a § 2241 16 petition, rather than a § 2254 petition. 17 Accordingly, Petitioner will be provided an opportunity to amend. Petitioner is 18 cautioned that failure to file a second amended petition within the time permitted therefor may 19 result in dismissal of the entire action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with Court 20 rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Petitioner’s original petition, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to amend; 3 2. Petitioner shall file a first amended petition on the form provided within 30 4 || days of the date of this order; and 5 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward to Petitioner the court’s form 6 || petition for state prisoners. [7] 8 Dated: October 28, 2025 Svc ? DENNIS M. COTA 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE