Opinion
23-cv-1446-AGS-DEB
09-14-2023
Francisco SANCHEZ VALLE, Petitioner, v. Howard C. BARRON, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING HABEAS PETITION (ECF 1)
ANDREW G. SCHOPLER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, petitioner seeks a prison transfer and relief from the allegedly onerous conditions of his confinement. These issues cannot be addressed through the requested writ of habeas corpus.
A. Prison Transfer
Petitioner Francisco Sanchez Valle is imprisoned over 1,200 miles from his primary residence in California and seeks a transfer closer to home. (Id.) He believes the First Step Act “states that I have to be less than 500 miles away from my home.” (Id. at 12.) He's mistaken.
The First Step Act does not mandate that prisoners be placed within 500 miles of their primary residence. Instead of such a bright-line rule, the Act sets forth a multi-factor analysis to ensure that inmates are placed “as close as practicable to the prisoner's primary residence, and to the extent practicable, in a facility within 500 driving miles of that residence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (emphasis added).
More importantly, by the Act's own terms, “a designation of a place of imprisonment under this subsection is not reviewable by any court.” Id. § 3621(b)(5). In other words, the statute that Sanchez relies upon forbids this Court from reviewing his prison designation, let alone ordering his transfer to another facility. See Ahmad v. Jacquez, 860 Fed.Appx. 459, 461-62 (9th Cir. 2021) (upholding dismissal of § 2241 petition seeking a prison transfer under the First Step Act because under “§ 3621(b), we lack jurisdiction”).
B. Conditions of Confinement
Sanchez Valle also complains that he “has not seen an appropriate doctor,” is “afraid that lack of medical care will lead to the return of [his] cancer,” and is repeatedly ignored by prison staff who “never respond” to him. (ECF 1, at 6, 9-11.) Claims regarding prison conditions cannot be raised in a habeas petition. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016). Requests for relief from the “circumstances of confinement may be presented in a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 [civil-rights] action.” Id.
Even if this were a § 1983 action, it would be in the wrong venue. Such cases must be filed where the defendants “reside[]” or “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” See DeBose v. Madden, No. 20-cv-1132-MMA (WVG), 2021 WL 689049, at *2 n.2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2021). Sanchez Valle is confined at Federal Detention Center, SeaTac, in Seattle, Washington. (ECF 1, at 1.)
CONCLUSION
Sanchez Valle's habeas petition is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk will close this case.