United States District Court, D. North Dakota
John C. Bridges, a/k/a Almighty God Satan, Petitioner,
Leann Bertsch, North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge.
the Court is Motion to Dismiss Section 2254 Petition filed by
the Respondent on January 10, 2019. The Respondent seeks
dismissal of this action. In the alternative, she requests
additional time to file a substantive response to the
Petitioner's habeas petition. For the reasons set for
below, the Motion to Dismiss Section 2254 Petition is granted
and the request for additional time is deemed moot.
Petitioner was convicted in two separate North Dakota cases.
He was first convicted in State No. 08-2012-CR-01587 of
murder and kidnaping, for which the state district court
imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without parole and
twenty years imprisonment, respectively. He was subsequently
convicted in State No. 08-2012-CR-02276 of attempted murder
and possession of contraband by an inmate, for which the
state district court imposed consecutive sentences of twenty
years imprisonment. Sometime thereafter he was transferred by
the North Dakota Department of Corrections to a federal
correctional facility in Florence, Colorado, for service of
November 2, 2018, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 with United
States District Court for the District of Colorado. He
I'm a state prisoner housed in the Administrative Maximum
(“ADX” federal prison at Florence, Colorado. My
federal custody is under the inter-governmental (i.e., state
to federal) transfer compact; the “compact” is a
contractual agreement between the North Dakota Dept of
Corrections (ND-DOC) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
The compact is unlawful because ND-DOC prison officials . . .
. promised to transfer me to Montana state prison if I plead
guilty to attempted murder (for assaulting one of their
correctional officers in 2013), and they used that conviction
to transfer me to the BOP (under the compact.) They know
about my history of mental illness and exploited it by
offering to transfer me (to my home state) in exchange for a
guilty plea. Any compact based on that conviction is unlawful
and should be void (or revised); therefore my present
physical custody in the BOP is unlawful.
I want to withdraw my guilty plea (for attempted murder)
because prison officials lied to me, and used my conviction
to send me to the ADX (despite the fact that the officer I
assaulted only received superficial wounds and wasn't
hurt; also I served my seg. time for the assault in North
Dakota before they sent me here). Additionally, I request for
a federal judge to review the compact and determine its
legality (given the information I provided in this petition).
(Doc. No. 1).
December 13, 2018, the district court in Colorado issued an
order dismissing the Petitioner's civil rights claims,
reminding the Petitioner that he did not have a
constitutional right to be confined to any particular
correctional facility, and transferring the Petitioner's
claim challenging the validity of his conviction in State No.
08-2012-CR-02276 to this Court. (Doc. No. 7).
December 17, 2018, the Clerk's office sent notice to the
parties that this matter had been directly assigned to the
Magistrate Judge and requested that they complete and return
an enclosed Consent/Reassignment form. (Doc. No. 9).
December 28, 2018, the Court issued orders granting the
Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, substituting
Director Bertsch in place of the United States as the named
respondent, and directing the Clerk's office to serve her
with a copy of the Petitioner's habeas petition. (Doc.
Nos. 10 and 11).
January 7, 2019, the Petitioner filed notice of his consent
to the Magistrate Judge's exercise of jurisdiction. On
January 8, 2019, he filed a motion for leave to attach a
two-page “annex” to his petition. The Court
granted his motion and directed the Clerk's office to
attach the “annex” to the petition and refile it
as an amended petition. (Doc. Nos. 17 and 18).
on January 11 and 14, 2019, the Respondent filed a Motion to
Dismiss and supplement to the motion, respectively. (Doc. Nos
15 and 19). She avers that the petition is untimely.
Alternatively, she asserts that the Petitioner has failed to
exhaust his state court remedies as required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b)(1). On February 1, 2019, she filed consent to
the Magistrate Judge's exercise of jurisdiction.
than 21 days has now lapsed since the Respondent filed her
supplement to the Motion to Dismiss and the Petitioner has
yet to file a response. See D.N.D. Civ. L.R.
7.1(A)(1) (“The adverse party has twenty-one (21) days
after service of the memorandum in support to serve and file
a response subject to the same page limitations.”). The
Petitioner's silence may be deemed an admission that the
motion is well taken. See D.N.D. Civ. L.R. 7.1(F)