Raymond Thomas v. William Lothrop ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 8 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND THOMAS, No. 19-16040
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03301-DJH-DMF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM LOTHROP,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
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
*
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).
(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 (1991).
Thomas also moves for immediate release in light of the COVID-19 public
health crisis. We deny his motion.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-16040