Opinion
22-55576
07-23-2024
SERGIO SANCHEZ-CHAVEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FELICIA PONCE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted July 16, 2024 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California No. 2:21-cv-09087-DSF-MAR Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SCHROEDER, VANDYKE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Federal prisoner Sergio Sanchez-Chavez appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied sub nom. Sands v. Bradley, 144 S.Ct. 1382 (2024), we affirm.
Sanchez-Chavez contends that the district court erred by concluding that his challenge to the conditions of his confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic was not cognizable in a § 2241 petition. He contends that his claim sounds in habeas because no set of conditions in Bureau of Prisons' custody would be constitutionally permissible and immediate release is the only available remedy.
Contrary to Sanchez-Chavez's suggestion, the fact that he is seeking immediate release is not sufficient to invoke habeas jurisdiction. See id. at 107273 ("[A] successful claim sounding in habeas necessarily results in release, but a claim seeking release does not necessarily sound in habeas."). Moreover, Sanchez-Chavez has failed to allege facts sufficient to support his contention that "no set of conditions exist that would cure the constitutional violations" at his facility. See id. at 1075. The district court correctly dismissed this petition. See id. at 1073-75 (concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition seeking release on the basis of prison conditions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).