GEORGE NELSON, III V. "SB" OF OREGON STATE HOSPITAL, No. 18-35399 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GEORGE PATTON NELSON III, Petitioner-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-35399 D.C. No. 6:18-cv-00187-MC v. MEMORANDUM* "SB" OF OREGON STATE HOSPITAL; et al., Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. George Patton Nelson III, an Oregon pretrial detainee, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his habeas corpus petition. We affirm. Nelson’s habeas petition alleged that officials at Oregon State Hospital (“OSH”), where he was confined pursuant to an Oregon state court order, were * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). interfering with his attempts to send mail to an FBI agent and to an attorney. He requested a writ of mandamus ordering the officials to cease interfering with his mail and to produce evidence to rebut the state charges against him. Nelson did not challenge the basis of his confinement at OSH or present any arguments as to why his confinement was unconstitutional. To the extent that Nelson’s filing was a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, the district court properly dismissed Nelson’s habeas petition because success on his claims would not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement at OSH, and, therefore, Nelson’s claims fell outside “the core of habeas corpus.” See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). To the extent that Nelson was seeking mandamus or other injunctive relief, he has not shown a basis for granting such relief. Accordingly, we affirm. All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 18-35399
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
