Mosley v. Fine

1 WO MDR [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Joe Elton Mosley, No. CV 21-00639-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Judge Fine, 13 Respondent. [14] 15 On April 14, 2021, Petitioner Joe Elton Mosley, who is confined in the Florence 16 Correctional Center, filed a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 17 § 2241 (Doc. 1). 18 First, Petitioner has named United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine as the 19 sole Respondent. However, Magistrate Judge Fine is not a proper Respondent. “Where a 20 prisoner files an action under section 2241, ‘the prisoner must name the warden of the 21 penitentiary where he is confined as a respondent.’” Johnson v. Reilly, 349 F.3d 1149 , 22 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Allen v. Oregon, 153 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 1998)). 23 “‘Failure to name the petitioner’s custodian as a respondent deprives federal courts of 24 personal jurisdiction.’” Id. (quoting Stanley v. California Sup. Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th 25 Cir. 1994)). 26 Second, Petitioner is a federal pretrial detainee.1 His claims regarding his ongoing 27 criminal case should be raised in that proceeding, not in a separate case. See Jones v. [28] 1 Petitioner was arrested on a warrant from the United States District Court for the 1| Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391 (1918) (“It is well settled that in the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of a trial.’””); see also Williams v. Hackman, 4| 364 F. App’x 268, 268 (7th Cir. 2010) (“a federal pretrial detainee cannot use § 2241 to 5 | preempt the judge presiding over the criminal case”); Horning v. Seifart, 1997 WL 58620, *1 (6th Cir. 1997) (unpublished) (“[T]he grounds upon which the right to the writ [under § 2241] are asserted are, in substance, defenses to [petitioner’s] criminal prosecution .... 8 | The habeas petition was properly dismissed as that remedy cannot be invoked to raise defenses to a pending federal criminal prosecution.”). 10 Thus, the Court will dismiss the § 2241 Petition and this action. ITIS ORDERED: 12 (1) Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition (Doc. 1) and this case are dismissed. 13 (2) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 14 Dated this 23rd day of April, 2021. [17] 18 Z James A. Teilvorg Senior United States District Judge [23] 24 | District of Nevada regarding a violation of his pretrial release conditions. In a February 12, 2021 Order in 20-MJ-05313-DMF, Magistrate Judge Fine concluded Petitioner was 25| “presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings 26 | against him and/or to assist properly in his defense” and committed him to the custody of the United States Attorney General for “hospitalization and treatment in a suitable facility, | forareasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that in the foreseeable future [Petitioner] will 28 attain the sapacity to permit the trial to proceed on the pending charges.” (Doc. 20 in -MJ- .