Joseph D. Lyles v. Los Angeles County Courts

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. If Petitioner wishes to pursue this action, he must file a First Amended Petition within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Petiti oner must use the form approved by the Central District of California, a copy of which is attached. If Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may use the attached form Notice of Dismissal and voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice. (See document for further details). (Attachments: # 1 State Habeas Form, # 2 Notice of Dismissal Form) (mr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
JOSEPH D. LYLES,

11

Case No. CV 16-5401 DOC (SS)

Petitioner,

12

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

v.

13

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTS,
COMPTON,

14
15

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Respondent.

16
17
18

I.

19

INTRODUCTION

20
21

On July 20, 2016, Joseph D. Lyles (“Petitioner”), a California

22

resident proceeding pro se, filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28

23

U.S.C. § 2254. (“Petition,” Dkt. No. 1). For the reasons discussed

24

below, the Petition must be dismissed with leave to amend.1

25
26
27
28

“The filing of an application for a writ of habeas corpus is
analogous to the filing of a civil complaint . . . .” Williams v.
Coyle, 167 F.3d 1036, 1038 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Woodford v.
Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 208 (2003) (“[A] habeas suit begins with
the filing of an application for habeas corpus relief -- the
equivalent of a complaint in an ordinary civil case.”).
A
1

1

The Court has the authority to dismiss habeas actions sua

2

sponte under the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States

3

District Courts. See 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rule 4 (“If it plainly

4

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

5

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the

6

judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the

7

petitioner.”); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 641 &

8

n.1 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Rule 4); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908

9

F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (observing that summary dismissal is

10

appropriate where petition’s allegations are vague, conclusory,

11

palpably

12

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).

incredible,

patently

frivolous

or

false)

(citing

13
14

II.

15

ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION

16
17

The Petition appears to challenge a 2013 Los Angeles County

18

conviction for possessing marijuana with the intent to sell in

19

violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11359.

20

at 10, 64).

21

relief, some of which are further subdivided into sub-grounds for

22

relief and many of which overlap.

(Petition

The Petition purports to raise thirteen grounds for

(Id. at 9-59).

23
24

Ground One alleges that Petitioner’s sentence was wrongly

25

enhanced based upon an earlier conviction for a crime of violence.

26
27
28

Magistrate Judge may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend
without approval of the District Judge.
See McKeever v. Block,
932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
2

1

(Id. at 9-11).

2

arguing that various witnesses who testified in support of the

3

earlier conviction conspired to introduce perjured testimony. (Id.

4

at 9-23).

Ground One is divided into several sub-grounds

5
6

Ground Two appears to argue that the evidence was insufficient

7

to demonstrate that Petitioner intended to sell marijuana: he

8

claims that he stores marijuana in numerous baggies to ration it

9

for his own use, not because he intends to sell it to others.
25-27).

Ground

Two

further

argues

that

Petitioner

(Id.

10

at

was

11

unlawfully searched for marijuana by Los Angeles Metro Transit

12

Police officers.

13

in Grounds Three, Four, Five, and Eight.

Petitioner raises similar unlawful search claims
(Id. at 23-34, 39).

14
15

Ground

Six

appears

intended

to

state

a

claim

under

the

16

Americans With Disabilities Act, but simply reiterates Petitioner’s

17

contentions that: (1) he was unlawfully searched; (2) perjured

18

testimony was introduced to obtain his earlier conviction; and

19

(3) his marijuana was not packaged for sale to others.

20

34-38).

21

had a “valid medical marijuana recommendation.”

(Id. at

Ground Seven argues that, at the time of his arrest, he
(Id. at 38-39).

22
23

Grounds Nine and Eleven argue that California’s prisons are

24

overcrowded and that non-violent offenders should be released

25

before violent offenders.

26

Thirteen allege that Petitioner had no access to marijuana in

(Id. at 42, 52-53).2

Grounds Ten and

27
In the scanned version of the Petition available on the Court’s
docket, the page describing Ground Nine is in the wrong place.
2

28

3

1

prison

2

rituals.

3

Petitioner lacked access to a phone in prison.

for

medical

use

or

for

use

(Id. at 40-52, 56-59).

in

Petitioner’s

religious

Ground Twelve alleges that
(Id. at 53-56).

4
5

III.

6

DISCUSSION

7
8
9
10

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court must dismiss the
Petition due to the defects discussed below.

However, the Court

grants Petitioner leave to amend.

11
12

A.

13

The Petition Must Be Dismissed Because Petitioner Did Not Use
The Appropriate Form

14
15

Local Civil Rule 83-16.1 provides that “[a] petition for a

16

writ of habeas corpus . . . shall be submitted on the forms approved

17

and supplied by the Court.”

18

issued by the Central District of California, and the Petition does

19

not

20

District’s standard form.

21

asking a petitioner who has not used the required form to submit

22

his petition on the local form.

23

2 advisory committee’s note to 2004 amendments (acknowledging this

24

practice).

25

amend so that Petitioner may file a First Amended Petition using

26

the correct form.

include

all

of

the

Here, Petitioner did not use the form

information

requested

on

the

Central

This Court adheres to the practice of

See 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rule

Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed with leave to

27
28
4

1
2

B.

The Petition Must Be Dismissed Because It Fails To Comply With
Rule 8

3
4

Rule 8(a) requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain

5

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

6

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

7

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (Rule 8(a) requires only “‘a short and

8

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

9

to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what

10

the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests’”) (quoting

11

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

12
13

A pleading can violate Rule 8 in “multiple ways.” Knapp v.

14

Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013). “One well-known type

15

of violation is when a pleading says too little.” Id. (citation

16

omitted).

17

too much.” Id. (citing Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4

18

Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011)).

“The Rule is also violated, though, when a pleading says

19
20

Additionally, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases,

21

which demands an even “more detailed statement” than Federal Rule

22

of Civil Procedure 8(a), Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 649 (2005),

23

requires that a petition “specify all the grounds for relief

24

available to the petitioner” and “state the facts supporting each

25

ground.”

Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

26
27

While Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires

28

a “more detailed statement,” the instant Petition is needlessly
5

1

lengthy

2

excluding exhibits and, as noted above, there is extensive overlap

3

and duplication in Petitioner’s claims.

4

difficulty

5

currently drafted.

6

file

7

discussed above.

a

and

repetitive.

understanding

First

It

is

and

over

fifty-nine

pages

long,

A respondent would have

responding

to

the

Petition

as

The Petition must be dismissed with leave to

Amended

Petition

complying

with

the

authorities

8
9
10

C.

Several

Of

Petitioner’s

Claims

Are

Defective

Or

Are

Not

Cognizable On Habeas Corpus Review

11
12

The

foregoing

defects

the

However,

dismissal.

in

in

Petition
the

are

interest

sufficient
of

to

13

warrant

providing

14

Petitioner with a full opportunity to file a First Amended Petition

15

containing meritorious claims, the Court identifies several legal

16

deficiencies in his current claims that likely warrant modifying

17

or omitting these claims.

18
19

First, it is unclear whether Petitioner is currently “in

20

custody”

pursuant

to

the

challenged

conviction.

A

§

2254

21

petitioner must show that he is “in custody” pursuant to the

22

challenged state court judgment at the time his petition is filed.

23

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989).

24

Although incarceration, parole and certain other restraints on a

25

person’s liberty qualify as “custody” for purposes of section 2254,

26

a person does not remain “in custody” under a state court judgment

27

simply because that judgment may be used to enhance sentences for

28

later crimes.

See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 491-92; see also Lackawanna
6

1

Cty. Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 401 (2001).

2

Petition

3

Petitioner “took a plea deal of (16) sixteen months at half time.”

4

(Petition at 7, 9-10).

5

not imprisoned under that conviction when he filed the Petition on

6

July 20, 2016.

7

Petitioner’s liberty place him “in custody” for the purpose of

8

challenging the 2013 conviction.

9

identify any such restraints.3

appears

to

challenge

a

2013

conviction

The instant
for

which

It therefore appears that Petitioner was

It is possible, however, that other restraints on

A First Amended Petition should

10
11

Relatedly, to the extent that Petitioner seeks to challenge

12

the use of a prior conviction to enhance the sentence on his 2013

13

conviction, that challenge is barred and should be omitted from

14

any First Amended Petition.

15

532 U.S. at 403-04 (“[O]nce a state conviction is no longer open

16

to direct or collateral attack in its own right . . . the conviction

17

may be regarded as conclusively valid.

18

used to enhance a criminal sentence, the defendant generally may

19

not challenge the enhanced sentence through a petition under § 2254

20

on the ground that the prior conviction was unconstitutionally

21

obtained.”).

See Lackawanna Cty. Dist. Attorney,

If that conviction is later

22
23
Assuming that Petitioner is “in custody,” a First Amended Petition
should also name a proper respondent, i.e., the state officer
having custody of Petitioner, which might include his probation or
parole officer and the official in charge of the parole or probation
agency, or the state correctional agency, as appropriate. See Rule
2(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez,
81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996). The current Respondent, “Los
Angeles County Courts, Compton,” does not appear to be an
appropriate respondent.
3

24
25
26
27
28

7

1

Next,

several

of

Petitioner’s

claims

appear

to

allege

2

violations of Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment protections against

3

unlawful searches and seizures.

4

However, Fourth Amendment violations are not cognizable on habeas

5

review if the petitioner had “an opportunity for full and fair

6

litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim.”

See Stone v. Powell, 428

7

U.S.

inquiry

8

Petitioner did in fact litigate his Fourth Amendment claims, or

9

even whether his claims were correctly decided, but rather whether

465,

494

(1976).

The

(Petition at 23-34, 36-37, 39).

relevant

is

not

whether

10

he had the opportunity to litigate such claims.

See Ortiz-Sandoval

11

v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 1996).

12

criminal defendants with such an opportunity through the procedures

13

of California Penal Code § 1538.5, which permits defendants to move

14

to suppress evidence on the ground that it was obtained in violation

15

of the Fourth Amendment.

16

14 (9th Cir. 1990).

17

opportunity for “full and fair” litigation of his Fourth Amendment

18

claims, they cannot form the basis for federal habeas corpus relief

19

and should be omitted from any First Amended Petition.

California provides

See Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613-

Absent evidence that Petitioner lacked an

20
21

Several of Petitioner’s claims challenge the conditions of

22

his confinement.

(See Petition at 40-56).

23

remedy for conditions-of-confinement claims is a suit under 42

24

U.S.C. § 1983, not a habeas corpus petition.

25

Grounds, __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 4072465 at *9 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016)

26

(because success on petitioner’s claims would not necessarily lead

27

to immediate or earlier release, claims did not fall within “core

28

of habeas corpus” and had to be brought under § 1983).
8

However, the exclusive

See Nettles v.

Although a

1

habeas corpus petition may be construed as a § 1983 complaint,

2

Petitioner’s

3

pleading must be amenable to conversion “on its face,” i.e., it

4

must “name[] the correct defendants and seek the correct relief.”

5

Id. at *10.

6

petition as a § 1983 complaint if it contains claims that fall

7

within the “core of habeas corpus,” i.e., claims that seek release

8

from custody.

9

habeas corpus is the “exclusive vehicle” for claims brought by

10

state prisoners that fall within the core of habeas corpus, and

11

such claims may not be brought in a § 1983 action).4

12

files a First Amended Petition seeking his release from custody,

13

it should not also include § 1983 claims that, if meritorious,

14

would not lead to release from custody.

informed

consent

to

do

so

is

required,

and

the

Moreover, the Court cannot construe a habeas corpus

See id. at *3 (Ninth Circuit has “long held” that

If Petitioner

15
16

Finally,

Petitioner

cites

and

discusses

California

law

17

throughout his Petition.

However, a federal court conducting

18

habeas review is limited to deciding whether a state court decision

19

violates the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

20

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011)

21

(per curiam).

22

errors of state law.”

23

see also Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010) (per curiam)

24

(“[I]t is only noncompliance with federal law that renders a

Federal habeas corpus relief “does not lie for
Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990);

25
26
27
28

Moreover, to the extent that Petitioner seeks injunctive relief
for his conditions-of-confinement claims, Petitioner’s release
from incarceration likely “extinguishes his legal interest in an
injunction.” McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1095-96
(9th Cir. 2004).
4

9

1

State’s criminal judgment susceptible to collateral attack in the

2

federal courts.” (emphasis in original)).

3

not transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by

4

asserting a violation of due process.”

5

1380,

6

Petition should omit claims based solely on errors of state law.

1389

(9th

Cir.

1997).

Petitioner also “may

Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d

Accordingly,

the

First

Amended

7
8

IV.

9

CONCLUSION

10
11

If Petitioner wishes to pursue this action, he must file a

12

First Amended Petition within thirty (30) days from the date of

13

this Order.

14

District of California, a copy of which is attached.

15

Amended Petition shall be complete in itself and shall bear both

16

the

17

assigned to this action.

18

original Petition.

Petitioner must use the form approved by the Central

designation

“First

Amended

Petition”

and

the

The First

case

number

It shall not refer in any manner to the

19
20

Petitioner is advised to clearly identify, to the best of his

21

ability, the dates he filed any appeals as well as the dates of

22

any rulings on those appeals.

23

clearly identify the dates he filed any state habeas petitions as

24

well as the dates of any rulings on those petitions.

25

shall also, to the extent possible, list the claims raised in each

26

of his direct appeals and habeas petitions filed in state court.

27

Finally, in presenting his claims in his First Amended Petition,

28

Petitioner should assert each of his grounds for federal habeas

Similarly, Petitioner is advised to

10

Petitioner

1

relief as a separate “claim” by (1) identifying the constitutional

2

right that he alleges was violated, followed by (2) a statement of

3

all facts that support that particular claim.

4

Petition should avoid grouping allegations of purported violations

5

of different constitutional rights committed by different actors

6

based on different facts in the same “claim.”

The First Amended

7
8

Petitioner is further cautioned that failure to timely file a

9

First Amended Petition will result in a recommendation that this

10

action

be

dismissed

with

prejudice

for

failure

11

to

prosecute,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

12
13

If Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may

14

use the attached form Notice of Dismissal and voluntarily dismiss

15

this action without prejudice.

16

dismissed claims may later be subject to the one-year limitations

17

period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), as amended by AEDPA.

Petitioner is advised that any

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

DATED:

August 24, 2016

22
/S/
__________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
11