Ricky Tyrone Foster v. Jeffery A. Beard

Filing 4

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254), 1 . Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mz)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICKY TYRONE FOSTER.,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.
JEFFREY A. BEARD,

15
16

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 16-965 DDP FFM
ORDER SUMMARILY
DISMISSING PETITION FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION

17
18

On February 11, 2016, Petitioner Ricky Tyrone Foster (“Petitioner”), a state

19

prisoner incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California, filed a

20

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 2254. (Dkt. No. 1).

22

The Petition does not challenge Petitioner’s underlying conviction or the duration

23

of Petitioner’s confinement. Rather, the Petition alleges that Petitioner’s constitutional

24

rights were violated by the Small Claims Division of the Los Angeles County Superior

25

Court and by California State Prison Los Angeles County mailroom staff. (Id. at 11–18).

26

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is limited to attacks upon the legality or duration of

27

confinement. Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Preiser v.

28

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-86 (1973)). Accordingly, claims that neither “necessarily
1

1

imply the invalidity of a conviction” nor “necessarily spell speedier release” are not

2

cognizable on habeas. Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1151, 1157 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing

3

Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 1298–1299 & n.13 (2011)).

4

To the extent that they can be discerned, Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on

5

federal habeas. Because the Petition ostensibly attacks the legality of a decision of the

6

Small Claims Division of the Superior Court and the actions of prison mail room staff,

7

they may be appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, as they neither implicate the

8

validity of Petitioner’s conviction nor necessarily spell Petitioner’s speedier release, they

9

are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

10

Based on the above discussion and pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

11

Section 2254 cases in the United States District Court, it is therefore ordered that this

12

action be dismissed without prejudice.

13
14

DATED: MARCH 29, 2016

15
16
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20

Presented by:

21
22
23

/S/FREDERICK F. MUMM
FREDERICK F. MUMM
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2