Peterson v. Hinds

Background

Cary Lee Peterson filed a habeas petition, meaning a petition challenging the legality or administration of his custody, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He had been sentenced by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to 52 months in prison for multiple crimes involving fraud, false certifications, false documents, and misrepresentation. When he filed this petition, he was confined at home with electronic ankle monitoring and multiple daily call-ins to a halfway house.

The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and stated that summary dismissal is appropriate when a petition’s allegations are vague, conclusory, plainly incredible, frivolous, or false.

Claims

1. Home confinement. Peterson argued that the Bureau of Prisons was required to place him in home confinement earlier. The court held that the statute he relied on directs the Bureau of Prisons to place lower-risk, lower-need prisoners in home confinement only “to the extent practicable.” The court interpreted that language as giving the Bureau discretion, making the decision not challengeable through a habeas petition. The court also found the claim moot because Peterson had already been released from custodial custody and was on home confinement before he filed the petition. Claim 1 was dismissed with prejudice.

2. Identification documents. Peterson alleged that his state identification card or driver’s license had been confiscated and not returned. The court said this claim did not fall within the core of habeas because Peterson did not allege that the documents were taken as punishment for his crimes. The court stated that the claim, if brought at all, would have to proceed as a civil-rights action. Because Peterson appeared to acknowledge that the property was held by the Department of Justice’s New Jersey office, the court also said the claim was not properly brought in the Northern District of California. Claim 2 was dismissed without prejudice to suing in the District of New Jersey for return of the property.

3. Assistance from an assistant United States attorney. Peterson relied on 18 U.S.C. § 3631 and argued that the statute required an assistant United States attorney to provide him personal assistance with reintegration into the community. The court held that the statute did not impose that requirement. The court also noted that, according to Peterson’s allegations, the attorney had contacted a local Federal Bureau of Investigation office about the property, informed Peterson that the office did not have it, and recommended contacting the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New Jersey. Claim 3 was dismissed with prejudice.

4. Sentencing procedures. Peterson challenged procedures used by the District of New Jersey during sentencing and argued that judicial errors caused sentencing enhancements to be imposed improperly. The court characterized this as a challenge to the sentence itself, rather than a challenge to the execution of the sentence. It therefore said the claim had to be brought in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court, the District of New Jersey. The court did not transfer the claim because Peterson appeared already to have filed a § 2255 motion there. Claim 4 was dismissed without prejudice to raising it in that pending action.

Motions and disposition

The court stated that it denied each pending motion on the merits or directed the Clerk to terminate it as moot. It denied Peterson’s emergency motion seeking judicial notice of alleged adjudicative facts because the material presented legal arguments rather than adjudicative facts. It also denied a second motion seeking judicial notice and, to the extent that motion sought recusal of the judge based on the judge’s employment with the American Civil Liberties Union more than two decades earlier, denied recusal as well. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the stipulation at Docket No. 2, the expedited-review motion at Docket No. 9, and the request to submit filings by email at Docket No. 12.

In its conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, with prejudice as to Claims 1 and 3 and without prejudice as to Claims 2 and 4. It stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue and directed the Clerk to close the file. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on May 4, 2022.