Morgan v. Houser

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
DANIEL OREN MORGAN,
Petitioner,
v.
EARL L. HOUSER,
Respondent.
Case No. 4:21-cv-00031-SLG
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, 399
F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in another tribunal are
appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Case 4:21-cv-00031-SLG Document 2 Filed 02/08/22 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 4:21-cv-00031-SLG, Morgan v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 4
that case by the Alaska Superior Court after a sentencing hearing on May 11,
2021.3
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
28 U.S.C. § 2241 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 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, 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, 200 F.3d 603, 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 govern 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Local Habeas
Corpus Rule 1.1(c)(2)).
6 Id.
7 Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 474 (2004).
8 Gage v. Chappell, 793 F.3d 1159, 1168 (9th Cir. 2015); quoting Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S.
723, 743 (2008).
Case 4:21-cv-00031-SLG Document 2 Filed 02/08/22 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 4:21-cv-00031-SLG, Morgan v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 4
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 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254.14 28 U.S.C. §
9 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
10 Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 650, 662 (1996).
11 28 U.S.C. § 2254(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, 526 U.S. 828, 845; see Alaska Criminal Rule 35.1.
14 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curium); Baldwin v.
Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004).
Case 4:21-cv-00031-SLG Document 2 Filed 02/08/22 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 4:21-cv-00031-SLG, Morgan v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 4
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 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
16 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(d), 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (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 4:21-cv-00031-SLG Document 2 Filed 02/08/22 Page 4 of 4