Cruz v. Jenkins

Background

Lucila Cruz, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She proceeded without a lawyer. The petition raised four claims: that she was in danger from COVID-19 while incarcerated; challenges concerning the “duration of confinement” and “conclusion of confinement”; and a claim that she was held in violation of federal law and the Constitution.

Cruz had pleaded guilty in a criminal case in the Northern District of Texas and received a 60-month prison sentence. The court explained that she filed this habeas case in the Northern District of California because she was incarcerated there, but that her claims were not properly brought under Section 2241.

Claim 1

The court divided Claim 1 into two parts. To the extent Cruz sought transfer to home confinement under the First Step Act or the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, the court held that those laws give the Bureau of Prisons discretion over home-confinement placement. The court ruled that this discretionary decision could not be challenged through a Section 2241 habeas petition. That portion of Claim 1 was dismissed with prejudice.

To the extent Cruz sought compassionate release, the court ruled that the request had to be made to the court that imposed her sentence. That portion of Claim 1 was dismissed without prejudice to refiling as a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 in the Northern District of Texas criminal case, Case No. 17-cr-0094-D-BR(2).

Claims 2 Through 4

Although Cruz stated that she was not challenging the validity of her sentence, the court found that her challenges to the duration and conclusion of her confinement, along with her claim that her custody violated federal law and the Constitution, attacked the validity of the sentence rather than how the sentence was being carried out.

The court explained that a federal prisoner generally must challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court, rather than through a Section 2241 petition in the district where the prisoner is incarcerated. The court also noted a narrow exception allowing use of Section 2241 when the Section 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective, but found that Cruz had not shown that this exception applied. Claims 2 through 4 were dismissed without prejudice to refiling as a Section 2255 motion in the Northern District of Texas criminal case.

Disposition

The court dismissed with prejudice the portions of Claim 1 seeking relief under the First Step Act and CARES Act; dismissed without prejudice the compassionate-release portion of Claim 1, with permission to refile it as a Section 3582 motion in the Texas sentencing case; and dismissed Claims 2 through 4 without prejudice to refiling as a Section 2255 motion in that case. Judge Lucy H. Koh directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions and close the file. The court did not decide whether Cruz was entitled to a certificate of appealability.