Shayne Eugene Todd v. Brian Redd

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed Shayne Eugene Todd’s habeas petition challenging his transfer from the Utah State Prison to the Utah State Correctional Facility. The court held that Todd’s challenges to his original conviction and sentence were second or successive claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and that his § 2241 claim failed to establish a protected liberty interest in confinement at a particular institution. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, denied related motions as moot, denied a certificate of appealability, and closed the case.

Holdings

1. Challenges to the validity of Todd's original conviction or sentence constituted § 2254 claims and were second or successive. Because Todd had not obtained authorization from the court of appeals, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider them.
2. A duly convicted prisoner has no protected liberty interest in confinement at a particular state correctional institution, and transfer from one facility to another does not require notice, a hearing, or judicial modification of the sentence. Todd's § 2241 due process claim therefore failed to state a cognizable claim.
3. Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler did not support Todd's claim because it concerned an unauthorized addition to a sentence that extended confinement beyond the sentencing judge's order, not a transfer between facilities during a valid sentence.
4. The district court declined to transfer the petition to the Tenth Circuit for successive-petition authorization because transfer was not in the interest of justice.
5. Dismissal without leave to amend was appropriate because the petition failed to state a plausible claim, Respondent's motion placed Todd on notice of the deficiencies, and Todd declined to allege facts curing them despite multiple filings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Todd's challenges to the validity of his original conviction and sentence were second or successive § 2254 claims that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider without authorization from the Tenth Circuit.
2. Whether transfer of a duly convicted prisoner from one state correctional facility to another, without notice, a hearing, or a judicial sentencing modification, states a cognizable due process claim under § 2241.
3. Whether Todd was entitled to amend the petition or have it transferred to the Tenth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 for authorization to file a successive habeas petition.
4. Whether Todd was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed