Dylan Littlefield v. Warden, No. 2:2012cv09122 - Document 13 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.). (lc). Modified on 11/5/2013 (lc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dylan Littlefield v. Warden Doc. 13 1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 DYLAN LITTLEFIELD, 15 Defendant. ___________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 12-09122 DDP T [CR 03-00934 DDP] ORDER DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Petition filed on October 24, 2012] 16 17 Before the court is Petitioner Dylan Littlefield’s Petition 18 for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The government opposes the Petition. 19 Having considered the parties’ submissions, the court now adopts 20 the following order. 21 22 23 I. Background On October 16, 2003, Petitioner pled guilty before this court 24 to a single-count information charging him with possession of 25 stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. (Opposition, 26 Memorandum, at 2.) After being initially sentenced on June 2, 2004, 27 the court entered an amended judgment on May 18, 2005, sentencing 28 Petitioner to a prison term of thirty-three months, followed by three years of supervised release. (Id.) Petitioner was released on Dockets.Justia.com 1 January 10, 2006. The terms of Petitioner’s supervised release 2 provided that Petitioner “shall not commit another Federal, State 3 or local crime.” 4 (Id.) Subsequently, on September 26, 2007, Petitioner pled guilty to 5 charges of robbery and attempted robbery in the Superior Court of 6 California, County of Los Angeles. 7 SA062820, Superior Court of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, 8 (Sept. 26, 2007). 9 imprisonment and is currently confined in a correctional facility 10 11 People v. Littlefield, No. Petitioner was sentenced to nine years in Kern County in the Eastern District of California.1 On July 17, 2008, the U.S Marshals filed a detainer against 12 Petitioner, indicating that Petitioner was wanted for violating the 13 terms of his supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 as a result 14 of his robbery and attempted robbery. (Petition at 1, 2.) According 15 to Petitioner, at the time the petition was submitted in October 16 2012, there were approximately twenty-seven months remaining on his 17 state sentence. (Petition at 2.) 18 On October 24, 2012, Petitioner filed the instant Petition 19 requesting that this court order Petitioner transferred to federal 20 custody to answer the pending charge of violation of the supervised 21 release. (DKT No. 1.) Petitioner also makes additional claims about 22 the conditions of his confinement in state custody, alleging that 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Respondent, alleges Petitioner is currently serving a state sentence at Kern Valley state prison, located in Delano, California, in the Eastern District of California. (Return, Memorandum 2: 17-19). Petitioner alleges Respondent is incorrect, and that Petitioner is in fact currently detained at the California Correctional Institution, located near Tehachapi, California. (Opp, Memorandum, at 1). Of relevance to this order, both institutions are located in Kern County, which is within the Eastern District of California. 2 1 he has been harassed and retaliated against for exercising his 2 First Amendment right to practice his religion; that he was falsely 3 found guilty of possessing contraband materials; and that the 4 substance abuse prevention programs at his facility are inadequate. 5 (Petition, Memorandum, at 1-3.) Petitioner subsequently filed a 6 supplemental brief, with leave of the court, asserting that the 7 federal detainer is hampering his ability to participate in 8 rehabilitative programming. (Supplemental Brief at 2-4.) 9 10 11 II. Discussion Petitioner requests that he be transferred to federal custody 12 to conclude his parole violation proceedings. (Petition, 13 Memorandum, at 4.) Petitioner appears to seek this relief 14 principally so that he might serve his state sentence for the 15 robbery and attempted robbery concurrently with his federal 16 sentence for the supervised release violation. (Id. at 2.) 17 As an initial matter, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly 18 held that the federal government is not constitutionally required 19 to writ a defendant out of state custody and into federal custody 20 for purposes of executing a violation warrant. Moody v. Daggett, 21 429 U.S. 78, 97 (1976). The court explained in Moody that a parolee 22 is “not constitutionally entitled to a revocation hearing 23 immediately upon the issuance of such a warrant,” in part because a 24 parolee does not suffer a loss of liberty as a parole violator 25 until he is taken into custody under the violation warrant. Id. 26 Nor, under Ninth Circuit precedent, is the government 27 “statutorily required to writ a defendant out of state custody and 28 bring him before the federal district court for his revocation 3 1 hearing.” United States v. Garrett, 253 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2001) 2 (explaining that the government did not violate 18 U.S.C. 3583(i) 3 by waiting until the petitioner was released from state custody to 4 adjudicate alleged supervised release violations). In explaining 5 its holding in Garrett, the Ninth Circuit noted that “requiring the 6 federal government to writ a defendant out of state custody for a 7 supervised release revocation hearing could prove extremely 8 burdensome.” (Id.) 9 Nonetheless, Petitioner asserts that the court should order a 10 transfer through the exercise of its discretion. Assuming for the 11 purposes of this order that the court has the authority to order 12 Petitioner’s transfer to federal custody for a revocation hearing, 13 the court finds it would be inappropriate to do so in this 14 circumstance. 15 There is well over a year remaining in Petitioner’s sentence 16 for the robbery and attempted robbery offenses. Thus, were the 17 court to order a transfer out of the state facility to a federal 18 facility in this district, Petitioner would very likely be 19 transferred back to state custody promptly after the revocation 20 hearing, resulting in a substantial burden on both state and 21 federal corrections personnel. This burden is not justified by 22 Petitioner’s desire to have the opportunity to serve his state and 23 federal sentences concurrently. A mid-sentence revocation hearing 24 is not necessary to ensure an inmate has the possibility of 25 avoiding successive sentences of confinement because the court 26 could take time already served into account when determining the 27 parole violation sentence. See 18 U.S.C § 3553 (providing that the 28 court shall consider “the need for the sentence imposed ... to 4 1 provide just punishment for the offense [and] to afford adequate 2 deterrence to criminal conduct”). Nor is the unusual step of a 3 transfer justified by Petitioner’s desire to access greater 4 rehabilitative and job training programs at federal facilities, a 5 desire shared by a great number, if not the majority, of inmates in 6 state facilities. 7 Plaintiff additionally makes several claims regarding 8 conditions of confinement at Kern Valley state prison and/or 9 California Correctional Institution. Plaintiff alleges that the 10 substance abuse and recidivism prevention treatment is inadequate 11 (Petition, Memorandum, at 2-4); Petitioner’s freedom to exercise 12 religion is being unduly restricted through anti-semitic remarks by 13 prison staff, restrictions on Petitioner’s diet, and restrictions 14 on pastoral visits (id. at 5-6); and that he has been subjected to 15 retaliation by prison staff for submitting grievances regarding his 16 conditions of confinement (id. At 7-8). Although Petitioner 17 initially sought declaratory relief as to his First Amendment 18 rights, (Petition at 2), Petitioner clarified in his Opposition to 19 the government’s Motion to Dismiss that he was withdrawing any 20 request for declaratory relief and does not seek any injunction 21 relative to prison staff. (Opposition, Memorandum, at 2, fn 3.) 22 Petitioner further clarified that “he is asking the court to take 23 notice of the conduct and use that conduct by staff in exercis[ing] 24 its discretion” regarding sentencing by issuing a concurrent 25 sentence. (Id.) 26 The court agrees with Petitioner that the extent to which an 27 inmate has availed himself of rehabilitative programming and the 28 extent of such programming available, as well as the experiences of 5 1 an inmate while in confinement and how the inmate has reacted to 2 those experiences, are relevant factors in determining an 3 appropriate sentence. Such factors are relevant to the “history and 4 characteristics of the defendant” and the “need for the sentence 5 imposed ... to protect the public from further crimes of the 6 defendant.” See 18 U.S.C § 3553 (1)-(2)(C). The court would 7 consider evidence of this sort when it issues a federal parole 8 violation sentence following Petitioner’s completion of his 9 sentence for the state law robbery and attempted robbery crimes. 10 There is no cause, however, for the court to consider these issues 11 at this juncture prior to sentencing. 12 To the extent that Petitioner seeks relief relative to the 13 alleged First Amendment violations or other matters related to his 14 conditions of confinement, the appropriate mechanism, after 15 exhausting all available administrative remedies, is a civil rights 16 suit pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 1983. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 17 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Habeas corpus proceedings are the proper 18 mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the ‘legality or duration’ of 19 confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 ... (1973). A 20 civil rights action, in contrast, is the proper method of 21 challenging ‘conditions of ... confinement.’” Id. at 498-99). Such 22 a civil rights action should be brought in the district in which 23 the prisoner is confined, in this case the Eastern District of 24 California. 25 (9th Cir.). See Wheeler v. United States, 640.2d. 1116, 1121 n.6 26 27 28 6 1 2 3 III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES the Petition. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: November 5, 2013 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
