Opinion
No. ED CV 17-02563-PA (DFM)
01-19-2018
WALTER ELIYAH THODY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On December 29, 2017, Walter Eliyah Thody ("Petitioner") filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 1 ("Petition"). According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Victorville, California. Petitioner's sole claim is that this Court should order his release because the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma has failed to respond promptly to Petitioner's filings in that district. Id. at 1.
Petitioner has a history of filing meritless habeas corpus petitions. In this district, he has filed four previous petitions, all of which were dismissed without prejudice: Case No. CV 15-1950 (September 2015), Case No. CV 15- 2013 (September 2015), Case No. CV 16-0161 (January 2016), and Case No. CV 17-2024 (October 2017). Petitioner has also filed at least three habeas petitions in other district courts, all of which were dismissed without prejudice. See Baker v. Williams, No. 13-58, 2014 WL 1408074 (N.D. W. Va. Apr. 11, 2014); Thody v. O'Brien, No. 11-174, 2012 WL 4746684 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 4, 2012); Thody v. Williamson, No. 05-0119, 2005 WL 1653173 (M.D. Pa. July 6, 2005).
As for the pending Petition, it is not cognizable. A state prisoner's federal habeas claims must lie at "the core of habeas corpus," i.e., success would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Here, Petitioner appears to challenge the district court's alleged delay in responding to his filings in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. See Petition at 1 (noting that court's "default"). Whatever remedy this Court could afford Petitioner with respect to any such delay—and Petitioner has not explained what jurisdiction this Court would have to direct the actions of another United States District Court—it would not be to order his release or confinement shortened. As to any substantive claims about the underlying conviction, this Court has previously told Petitioner that such claims must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 before the sentencing court in Oklahoma. See Thody v. Tews, Case No. CV 16-0161-PA (DFM), Dkt. 10. /// /// /// /// /// /// ///
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has not shown "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Dated: January 19, 2018
/s/_________
PERCY ANDERSON
United States District Judge Presented by: /s/_________
DOUGLAS F. McCORMICK
United States Magistrate Judge