Lundgren v. Jusino
- Charles Breyer
- 3:23-cv-01388
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lundgren v. Jusino, Judge Breyer ordered an answer to a prisoner’s habeas petition challenging a disciplinary finding affecting First Step Act release eligibility.
Courtney Michelle Lundgren and the respondent, T. Jusino, Warden; the order also directs the clerk and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California to handle service and filings.
What happened
Lundgren v. Jusino concerns Courtney Michelle Lundgren’s challenge to a prison disciplinary finding for refusing to obey an order on October 11, 2022. Lundgren, who filed without a lawyer, says the finding is baseless and wrongly prevents her from qualifying for earlier release under the First Step Act.
The court found that, when read broadly, her petition may be a valid challenge under the federal law governing petitions by prisoners and should receive a response. The court therefore ordered the respondent to answer the petition and provide relevant documents within 60 days.
The court did not decide whether Lundgren is entitled to relief. If she responds, she must file a written reply within 30 days after receiving the answer. Judge Charles R. Breyer signed the order.
The detailed version
- Lundgren v. Jusino · No. 3:23-cv-01388
- Charles Breyer
- May 17, 2023
Background
Courtney Michelle Lundgren, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California, filed a petition without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. §
- She challenges a disciplinary finding that she refused to obey an order on October 11,
- Lundgren claims the finding is baseless and wrongly makes her ineligible for earlier release under the First Step Act of
- She alleges that she exhausted available administrative remedies.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that it may consider a prisoner’s petition claiming custody violates the Constitution or federal law. After construing Lundgren’s filing liberally, as courts generally do with filings by people without lawyers, the court found that her claim appeared arguably cognizable under § 2241 and warranted an answer from the respondent.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause rather than deciding the merits of the petition. It directed the clerk to serve the order and petition materials on the respondent and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California. The respondent must file and serve an answer within 60 days of the order’s issuance, along with documents relevant to the issues in the petition. If Lundgren wishes to respond, she must file and serve a written reply within 30 days after receiving the answer. Judge Charles R. Breyer signed the order on May 17, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.