1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Case No. ED CV 20-829 JVS (MRW) 13 | MICHAEL MEADOR,

15 Vv. 16 | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 17 Respondent. 18 Me The Court dismisses this habeas corpus action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction over Petitioner’s request for resentencing. kek = 1. Petitioner Meador is an inmate at the federal prison in Victorville. In April 2020, he filed a habeas corpus petition under

in this judicial district — the Central District of California 20 — seeking reconsideration of his prison sentence. Petitioner acknowledged that he is serving a life term for a series of drug, weapon, and money 28

1 | laundering offenses that “evolve[d] from a felony murder” case. (Petition at 4-5.) 3 2. The basis for Petitioner’s resentencing request is the First Step 4 | Act of 2018. That statute [P.L. 115-391 (2018)] modifies statutory and 5 | sentencing guideline provisions regarding certain federal drug and violent 6 | crime offenses. Petitioner specifically sought relief under Section 404 of 7 || the Act. (Docket # 1 at 8.) That provision states that the federal court 8 | “that imposed a sentence for a covered offense may, on motion of the 9 | defendant[,] impose a reduced sentence” in certain specified 10 | circumstances. 11 3. Petitioner’s habeas petition has no information about the 12 | location of the federal court in which Petitioner was convicted or the basis 13 | for his First Step Act resentencing request. However, a review of the 14 | Central District of California’s docket shows that this Court was not the 15 | district of conviction. 16 4. Shortly after commencement of the action, Magistrate Judge 17 | Wilner ordered Petitioner to submit a supplemental statement regarding 18 | his petition. Judge Wilner’s screening order directed Petitioner to explain 19 | why he is entitled to pursue relief of his original criminal conviction under 20 | Section 2241 in this district (the district of incarceration) rather than by 21 | motion in the district in which he was tried, convicted, and sentenced. 22 | (Docket # 3.) 23 5: Petitioner failed to file a timely reply. In July 2020, 24 | Judge Wilner issued an order to show cause re: dismissal of the action. 25 | (Docket # 4.) Prison officials returned the order as undeliverable. (Docket 26 2 as □□ 1 The petition makes clear that Petitioner does not seek 28 | compassionate release from prison for age, health, or coronavirus-related reasons.

1 | #6.) (The original screening order and other court documents were not 2 | returned to the Court.) 3 6. Judge Wilner issued a revised OSC in August 2020. (Docket 4 | #7.) Petitioner filed a brief response stating that he had not received 5 || correspondence from the Court. (Docket # 8.) Judge Wilner vacated the 6 | OSC and gave Petitioner a new October deadline to respond to the original 7 | defect with his petition. (Docket # 9.) Petitioner failed to respond to that 8 | order. 9 ft If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person 10 | detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may summarily dismiss a 11 | habeas action.

; see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing 12 | Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts (petition may be 13 | summarily dismissed if petitioner plainly not entitled to relief); Local Civil 14 | Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for summary 15 || dismissal to district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition 16 || [] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief’). 8. Section 404(b) of the First Step Act — the statute under which 18 | Petitioner seeks resentencing — expressly limits such a proceeding to 19 | “a court that imposed a sentence for a covered offense.” (emphasis added.) 20 | A court other than the one that originally sentenced a defendant does not 21 | have jurisdiction under the statute to consider a motion for resentencing. 22 | Reid v. Lake,

at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (‘whether 23 | section 404 of the First Step Act is applicable and entitles Petitioner to a 24 | reduced sentence is a question to be resolved by the court that imposed 25 | Petitioner’s sentence [District of South Carolina] rather than this Court 26 | [Eastern District of California (district of incarceration)]”); see also United Zi 28

1 | States v. Kelley,

(9th Cir. 2020) (affirming sentencing 2 | court’s limited resentencing following First Step Act motion). 3 9. Petitioner Meador’s original petition / application to this Court 4 | did not establish that the district court for the Central District of 5 | California was the location in which he was convicted or sentenced. 6 | Further, the Court’s electronic docket shows no record of a criminal 7 | conviction in this district. On its face, then, the petition does not 8 | demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction over Petitioner’s request for 9 | resentencing. L.R. 72-3.2. 10 10. The Court recognizes that Petitioner may have had difficulty 11 | receiving and responding to previous orders in this action. The assigned 12 | magistrate judge extended the deadlines by which Petitioner could respond 13 | to those inquiries so that Petitioner could provide basic information about 14 | his criminal case. Even with those extensions, though, Petitioner failed to 15 | doso. Because of this, the Court dismisses the action without prejudice 16 | /// 17 | // 18 | /// 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 | based on the contents of the petition (rather than for failure to prosecute 2 | under Rule 41).? 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 +) J / 5 || Dated: November 12, 2020 6 HON. JAMES V.SELNA SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 Presented by: 9 10 es HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER 12 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 The Court is unable to transfer Petitioner's resentencing request to another judicial district; Petitioner hasn’t disclosed which one handled his 28 original conviction.