IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

DANIEL OREN MORGAN, Petitioner, v. Case No. 4:21-cv-00031-SLG EARL L. HOUSER, Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL At Docket 1, Daniel Oren Morgan, a self-represented prisoner, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C § 2241. Mr. Morgan alleges

that as a state prisoner he was (1) extradited to Alaska from Oregon without proper procedural due process; (2) denied counsel upon his arrest; and (3) that Alaska lacks jurisdiction over him for failing to follow extradition protocols.1 The Court takes judicial notice of Mr. Morgan’s state court criminal case in State of Alaska v. Daniel Oren Morgan, Case No. 4FA-15-02090CR.2 Specifically,

the record in that case reflects that a final judgment of conviction was entered in

1 Docket 1 at 6-7. 2 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such a fact.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service,

, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in another tribunal are appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). that case by the Alaska Superior Court after a sentencing hearing on May 11, 2021.3 SCREENING REQUIREMENT

provides federal courts with general habeas corpus jurisdiction.4 A court must “promptly examine” a habeas petition.5 “If it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion.”6 Upon screening, it plainly appears that Mr. Morgan is not entitled to

habeas relief pursuant to § 2241, and his petition must be dismissed. DISCUSSION A writ of habeas corpus allows an individual to test the legality of being detained or held in custody by the government.7 The writ “is a vital ‘instrument for the protection of individual liberty’ against government power.”8 Under

, a district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner “in custody

3 State of Alaska v. Daniel Oren Morgan, Case No. 4FA-15-02090CR (“Events: 05/11/2021 Sentencing Hearing, Hearing Held” & docket entry dated 05/1/2021 “Charge Disposition: Defendant Convicted on Charge[.] For sentencing information, see Judgment in the case file.”). 4 See Magana-Pizano v. INS,

, 608 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1999). 5 Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. (The same procedural rules for

govern

, Local Habeas Corpus Rule 1.1(c)(2)). 6

7 Rasul v. Bush,

(2004). 8 Gage v. Chappell,

(9th Cir. 2015); quoting Boumediene v. Bush,

(2008). Case No. 4:21-cv-00031-SLG, Morgan v. Houser in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”9 However, this Court’s “authority to grant habeas relief to state prisoners is limited by [28 U.S.C.] § 2254, which specifies the conditions under which such relief may be

granted to ‘a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.’”10 Among the requirements of § 2254 is the directive that a post-conviction state prisoner must exhaust all available state court remedies prior to seeking habeas relief from a federal court.11 Mr. Morgan was sentenced by the state court on May 11, 20121. As such,

he is no longer a pre-trial detainee and a petition under

is no longer proper. Mr. Morgan may pursue a direct appeal to the Alaska Court of Appeals and Alaska Supreme Court.12 If his direct state appeals do not grant relief, Mr. Morgan may pursue post-conviction relief from the Alaska Superior Court. And appeal any adverse determination to the Alaska Court of Appeals and the Alaska

Supreme Court.13 After exhausting all available state remedies, he may file a petition for habeas corpus with this Court under

(c)(3). 10 Felker v. Turpin,

, 662 (1996). 11

(b)(1)(A). 12 In Alaska, a criminal defendant may request discretionary review by the Alaska Supreme Court. See Alaska Statutes §§ 22.05.010, 22.07.020, and 22.07.030; Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure 215, 301, and 302. 13 See O’Sullivan v. Boerkel,

, 845; see Alaska Criminal Rule 35.1. 14

(c); Duncan v. Henry,

(1995) (per curium); Baldwin v. Reese,

(2004). Case No. 4:21-cv-00031-SLG, Morgan v. Houser 2254 is the proper avenue for a convicted state prisoner to challenge his conviction based on alleged constitutional violations in federal court.15 For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Morgan’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus under

is not procedurally proper at this time, because Mr. Morgan is no longer a pre-trial detainee but is instead in custody pursuant to a state court conviction. Therefore, Mr. Morgan’s petition must be dismissed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. The Petition at Docket 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. All pending motions are DENIED. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a Final Judgment in this case. 4. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.16 DATED this 8th day of February, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

(a). 16

(d), 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (certificate of appealability may be granted only if applicant made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” i.e., a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further” (internal quotations and citations omitted)). Case No. 4:21-cv-00031-SLG, Morgan v. Houser