Lott v. Koenig
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-08128
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Lott v. Koenig, Judge Gilliam dismissed Lott’s habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction, allowing a new civil-rights action challenging parole-hearing denial.
Jonathan Lott’s federal habeas petition was dismissed, but he may file a new civil-rights action challenging the denial of a Proposition 57 parole hearing.
What happened
In Lott v. Koenig, Jonathan Lott, an incarcerated person representing himself, argued that his firearm-possession conviction made him eligible for early parole consideration under Proposition 57. He sought a court declaration that he was a nonviolent offender and eligible for a parole hearing.
The court ruled that it could not consider the claim in a habeas petition because success would not guarantee Lott a parole hearing or require his release. Lott would still have to be found suitable for parole. The court said he could instead bring a civil-rights case under federal law if he believed the denial violated federal law or the Constitution.
Judge Haywood Gilliam dismissed the habeas petition for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction, without prejudice to filing a new civil-rights action. The court granted Lott’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and denied a certificate of appealability.
The detailed version
- Lott v. Koenig · No. 4:21-cv-08128
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 11, 2022
Background
Jonathan Lott, an incarcerated person housed at California Training Facility–Central, filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged the denial of early parole consideration under California Proposition 57. Lott argued that his controlling offense was possession of a firearm, which he characterized as a nonviolent offense, and that he therefore qualified for a parole hearing. He also alleged that the state relied on untrue statements concerning a reinstated life sentence for a prior attempted-premeditated-murder conviction and ignored relevant state law and the abstract of judgment.
Lott sought a declaration that he was a nonviolent offender eligible for early parole consideration. The court granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that federal habeas relief is available for challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or to matters that affect the duration of confinement. A civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the appropriate vehicle for a claim that would not necessarily result in faster release.
The court held that it lacked habeas jurisdiction because success on Lott’s claim would not ensure that he received a parole hearing. Even if he obtained a hearing, he would still need to be found suitable for parole before being released. The court therefore concluded that the claim fell outside the central scope of habeas relief and that Lott’s potential federal remedy was a new civil-rights action challenging the denial of a Proposition 57 parole hearing.
Disposition
The court dismissed the petition for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction. The dismissal was without prejudice to Lott filing a new civil-rights action asserting that the denial of a parole hearing violated the United States Constitution or federal law. The court also denied a certificate of appealability and directed the clerk to send Lott two civil-rights complaint forms and close the file. The order was entered by United States District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.