William Lee Bird v. Sheriff McDonald

Filing 5

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is Ordered that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition without prejudice. (Attachments: # 1 R&R) (sp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

WILLIAM LEE BIRD,

) NO. CV 14-9475-VAP(E)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
)
SHERIFF McDONALD,
) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________)

16
17
18

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable

19

Virginia A. Phillips, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States

21

District Court for the Central District of California.

22
INTRODUCTION

23
24
25

Petitioner filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a

26

Person in State Custody” on December 10, 2014.

27

from the face of the Petition that Petitioner is not entitled to

28

habeas relief.

It plainly appears

Therefore, the Court should deny and dismiss the

1

Petition without prejudice.

See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

3
DISCUSSION

4
5
6

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently serving his sentence in

7

the Los Angeles County Jail, seeks to challenge certain conditions of

8

his confinement, including alleged restrictions on his religious

9

practices and alleged restrictions on his access to legal materials.

10

The Petition does not challenge the legality of Petitioner’s

11

conviction or the length of Petitioner’s sentence.

12
13

A civil rights complaint, not a habeas corpus petition, is the

14

proper method of challenging the conditions of confinement.

15

v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d

16

890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979).

17

[civil rights] action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison

18

condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”

19

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied,

20

541 U.S. 1063 (2004); accord Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d at 574.

21

the present Petition does not challenge the legality of Petitioner’s

22

conviction or the length of Petitioner’s sentence, habeas jurisdiction

23

is absent.

See Badea

“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent and a

Because

See id.

24
25

This Court should not exercise its discretion to convert the

26

present Petition into a civil rights complaint.

27

procedural and substantive differences between habeas corpus actions

28

and civil rights actions pertinent to the circumstances herein.
2

There exist profound

For

1

example, Sheriff McDonald, as Petitioner’s custodian, would be an

2

appropriate respondent in a habeas corpus action.

3

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

4

Courts.

5

defendant in a civil rights action, however.

6

liable on a civil rights claim absent the defendant’s “personal

7

involvement” in the alleged constitutional deprivation or a “causal

8

connection” between the defendant’s conduct and the alleged

9

constitutional deprivation.

See Rule 2(a) of

Sheriff McDonald would not necessarily be an appropriate
A defendant is not

Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th

10

Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978);

11

see Palmer v. Sanderson, 9 F.3d 1433, 1438 (9th Cir. 1993) (a

12

supervisory official may not be held liable in a civil rights action

13

under the doctrines of vicarious liability or respondeat superior).

14

Additionally, prisoners filing civil rights actions, unlike prisoners

15

filing habeas petitions, are liable for the full amount of the $400.00

16

filing fee.

17

(9th Cir. 1997) (in forma pauperis provisions of section 1915, as

18

amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, do not apply to

19

habeas actions).

20

civil rights complaint would be inappropriate.

21

408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005) (court relied on myriad differences

22

between habeas actions and civil rights actions in affirming district

23

court’s refusal to recharacterize a habeas petition as a civil rights

24

complaint); Alford v. Doe, 2009 WL 3712823, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30,

25

2009) (declining to convert mislabeled habeas petition into

26

///

27

///

28

///

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); see Naddi v. Hill, 106 F.3d 275

Thus, conversion of the present Petition into a

3

See Glaus v. Anderson,

1

civil rights action).1

2
RECOMMENDATION

3
4
5

For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the

6

Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and

7

Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying and

8

dismissing the Petition without prejudice.

9
10

DATED: December 11, 2014.

11
12
13

_____________/S/_________________
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court also observes that Petitioner already has
pending in this Court a civil rights action in which he appears
to challenge some of the same alleged conditions of confinement
Petitioner seeks to challenge herein. See Bird v. (1) Sheriff
Jim McDonald, et al., No. CV 14-7205-VAP(E).
4

1
2

NOTICE
Reports and Recommendations are not appealable to the Court of

3

Appeals, but may be subject to the right of any party to file

4

objections as provided in the Local Rules Governing the Duties of

5

Magistrate Judges and review by the District Judge whose initials

6

appear in the docket number.

7

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed until entry of

8

the judgment of the District Court.

No notice of appeal pursuant to the

9

If the District Judge enters judgment adverse to Petitioner, the

10

District Judge will, at the same time, issue or deny a certificate of

11

appealability.

12

and Recommendation, the parties may file written arguments regarding

13

whether a certificate of appealability should issue.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Within twenty (20) days of the filing of this Report