1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH JAMES LUDWIG, Case No.: 25cv1507 JES (VET)

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING REQUEST TO FILE 14 JAMES H. HILL, Warden, MOTION AND SUPPORTING 15 Respondent. DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL;

16 (2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE; AND

18 (3) DENYING MOTION FOR 19 SENTENCE REDUCTION

20

21 22 Kenneth James Ludwig (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 23 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under

and has paid the $5.00 filing 24 fee. ECF Nos. 1, 1-3. Petitioner seeks to modify or vacate his state criminal sentence and 25 seeks a grant of compassionate release from state custody based on his medical condition. 26 ECF No. 1 at 1–5. Petitioner has also lodged with the Court a motion for sentence reduction 27 under

(c)(1)(A), accompanied by several attachments in support of that 28 motion, all of which he requests to file under seal. 1 The Court first addresses Petitioner’s request to file the motion and attachments in 2 support under seal. Upon review of the proposed sealed materials, it is evident those 3 documents contain personal medical and identifying information, and the Court in its 4 discretion and inherent authority finds it reasonable and appropriate to file these materials 5 in the manner requested. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to file the 6 motion for sentence reduction and supporting materials under seal and DIRECTS that 7 those materials be filed and docketed under seal in the instant case. 8 Turning to the instant habeas Petition, although Petitioner filed this action pursuant 9 to

, because he is a state prisoner attacking the validity of a state sentence, 10 he may not proceed under § 2241. Instead, any federal habeas challenge to Petitioner’s 11 current detention is properly brought under

. As the Ninth Circuit has 12 explained: 13 Section 2254 is properly understood as “in effect implement(ing) the general grant of habeas corpus authority found in § 2241, as long as the person is in 14 custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and not in state custody for 15 some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction. 16

17 White v. Lambert,

(9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Walker v. O’Brien, 216

(7th Cir. 2000) (additional citations omitted)). If Petitioner seeks to challenge 19 the constitutionality of his current detention in federal court, he must file a petition for a 20 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, not

21 Finally, with respect to Petitioner’s motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 22 § 3582(c)(1)(A), the statute at issue allows for modification or reduction of a federal 23 prisoner’s sentence in cases where “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a 24 25 26 1 On May 5, 2025, Petitioner previously filed a habeas petition pursuant to

27 in this district seeking this same relief, and in a May 14, 2025, Order, District Judge Montenegro dismissed that action and apprised Petitioner that he may not proceed under 28 1 reduction” or where certain other circumstances are met. See 18 U.S.C § 3852(c)(1)(A)(i)- 2 (ii). Yet, Petitioner acknowledges that he is a state, not a federal, prisoner. See e.g. ECF 3 No. 1 at 1 (“Petitioner is a state prisoner currently held under the authority of the California 4 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).”) Because Petitioner is a state 5 prisoner serving a state sentence, he fails to demonstrate this statute is applicable to his 6 situation.2 Thus, for the same reasons Petitioner cannot proceed under

, 7 Petitioner’s motion under

(c)(1)(A) must be denied. 8 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s 9 request to file the motion for sentence reduction and supporting materials under seal, 10 DIRECTS that those materials be filed and docketed under seal in the instant case, 11 DISMISSES this case without prejudice and DENIES the motion for sentence reduction.3 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 15 16

17 2 In the May 14, 2025, Order, in Petitioner’s prior section 2241 case, District Judge 18 Montenegro also similarly distinguished

(c)(1)(A) from the Petitioner’s 19 situation, noting that “Congress only authorized federal courts to grant compassionate release to federal prisoners when ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ warrant a 20 reduction in sentence, see

(c)(1)(A)(i), and Petitioner is not a federal 21 inmate serving a federal sentence.” See ECF No. 2 at 1–2 in S.D. Cal. Case No. 25-cv- 1144-RBM-DDL. 22

23 3 On May 5, 2025, Petitioner also filed a habeas petition pursuant to

in this district. See ECF No. 1 in S.D. Cal. Case No. 25-cv-1151-AJB-KSC. On May 8, 2025, 24 District Judge Battaglia dismissed that Petition without prejudice for “failure to satisfy the 25 filing fee requirement, failure to state a cognizable federal claim and failure to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies,” and directed that if Petitioner wished to reopen and 26 proceed with that case, he must submit both “(1) a completed First Amended Petition form 27 that cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in the instant Order and (2) either the $5.00 fee or adequate proof of Petitioner’s inability to pay the fee,” no later than July 7, 2025. 28 Dated: June 17, 2025 “| seit Sh reamcne ot 3 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. A United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28