Ludwig v. Hill
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — § 2
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se habeas petition filed by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking compassionate release from state custody. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, determining that § 2241 is the wrong vehicle for a state prisoner and that federal compassionate release statutes do not apply to state sentences.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Habeas Petition without prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s Habeas Petition without prejudice.” | agree with court The dismissal is legally correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is generally not the proper vehicle for a state prisoner challenging the validity or execution of a state sentence; 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive remedy for such claims. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) applies only to federal prisoners. The court correctly identified the jurisdictional defect and the inapplicability of the requested relief to a state inmate. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the distinction between § 2241 and § 2254 for state prisoners and correctly notes that federal compassionate release provisions do not extend to state sentences. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the legal defects in the petition.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH JAMES LUDWIG, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01144-RBM-DDL CDCR #BU-3868 12 ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS Petitioner, 13 PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. 14 [Doc. 1] JAMES HILL, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 On May 5, 2025, Petitioner Kenneth James Ludwig (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 19 incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California, 20 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2241 (“Habeas Petition”) and paid the $5.00 filing fee. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner seeks a 22 modification of his state criminal sentence to allow for compassionate release from state 23 custody. (Id. at 2–3.) 24 Petitioner argues that federal courts have authority to order compassionate release 25 from custody. (Doc. 1 at 2 (citing United States v. Zukerman, 451 F.Supp.3d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 26 2020)).) However, Congress only authorized federal courts to grant compassionate release 27 to federal prisoners when “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a reduction in 28 sentence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and Petitioner is not a federal inmate serving a 1 || federal sentence. 2 Further, because Petitioner is a state prisoner attacking the validity of a state 3 || sentence, he may not proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; he may only proceed with a habeas 4 action in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 5 || 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the proper jurisdictional basis 6 ||for a habeas petition brought by an individual in state custody pursuant to a state court 7 || judgment). 8 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s Habeas Petition without 9 || prejudice.! 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||}|DATE: May 14, 2025 12 Kept Baertasdls, Notting 2 13 ON. RUTH BERMGDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 | 27 ||! The Court notes that Petitioner filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 the ag || Same day he filed the instant Habeas Petition. (See Case No. 3:25-cv-01151-AJB-KSC, Doc. 1.)