Raymond THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William LOTHROP, Respondent-Appellee.
Decided: June 08, 2020
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Thomas, Pro Se
Federal prisoner Raymond Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition and order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm.
Thomas’s § 2241 habeas petition alleged that his detention is illegal because the Parole Commission lacked jurisdiction over him and violated his due process rights by failing to hold a prompt revocation hearing after issuing a parole violation detainer. Thomas previously raised these arguments in a § 2241 habeas petition filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina that was dismissed on the merits. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that the instant § 2241 habeas petition is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). Thomas’s § 2241 habeas petition is also barred by the abuse of the writ doctrine. See Alaimalo, 645 F.3d at 1049 (abuse of the writ doctrine “generally forbids the reconsideration of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior habeas petition” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Pizzuto v. Ramirez, 783 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 2015) (appellate court may affirm the district court on any basis supported by the record). Furthermore, the record does not show cause for bringing a successive petition, or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result from the failure to entertain the claim. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494-95, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991).
Thomas also moves for immediate release in light of the COVID-19 public health crisis. We deny his motion.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.