Cerron DeJohnette v. Kelly Santoro
Filing
3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL OF HABEAS PETITION by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Based on the foregoing, no later than June 5, 2017, DeJohnette is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a cla im for habeas relief. Alternatively, if DeJohnette wishes to pursue his civil rights claims, no later than June 5, 2017, he may voluntarily dismiss this action using the attached form titled "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Feder al Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) or (c)," and re-file his claims directly in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of California as a civil rights action. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) Response to Order to Show Cause due by 6/5/2017. (Attachments: # 1 CAED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS PACKET, # 2 NOITCE OF DISMISSAL) (gr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
WESTERN DIVISION
11
12
CERRON DeJOHNETTE,
13
Petitioner,
14
15
v.
KELLY SANTORO, Warden,
16
Respondent.
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 17-3334-AG (PLA)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
DISMISSAL OF HABEAS PETITION
18
I.
19
BACKGROUND
20
Cerron DeJohnette (“DeJohnette”) initiated this action on May 3, 2017, by filing a Petition for
21
Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition” or
22
“Pet.”). DeJohnette, however, is a state prisoner presently incarcerated at the North Kern State
23
Prison in Delano, California, pursuant to a 2016 conviction in the Van Nuys Superior Court. (Pet. at
24
2). Thus, it appears that to the extent DeJohnette intended to bring a habeas action in this Court,
25
he used the wrong form, and instead should have filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The
26
Court liberally construes the Petition as a habeas petition brought by a prisoner in state custody
27
under § 2254.
28
1
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254 empowers the Court to “entertain an application for a writ of habeas
2
corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court . . . on the ground
3
that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See 28
4
U.S.C. § 2254(a). Claims directed to the conditions of a petitioner’s confinement may not properly
5
be asserted in a habeas petition, or as part of a habeas petition. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
6
475, 498-500, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973). Rather, such claims must be asserted in a
7
civil rights action. See Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979) (“[T]he writ of habeas
8
corpus is limited to attacks upon the legality or duration of confinement.”); see also Ramirez v.
9
Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983
10
action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the
11
prisoner’s sentence”).
12
Here, the Petition raises two claims: (1) Sergeant O. Gonzales assaulted DeJohnette on
13
November 21, 2016, at North Kern State Prison, DeJohnette’s place of incarceration; and (2)
14
Commanding Officer Perez retaliated against DeJohnette based on the incident involving Sergeant
15
Gonzales. (Pet. at 3). These claims thus relate to an alleged assault against DeJohnette by a
16
prison official, and some unspecified retaliation against him by the commanding officer as a result
17
of that incident. These claims do not concern the fact or duration of DeJohnette’s sentence. As
18
such, the claims are appropriately raised in a civil rights action, not a habeas petition.
19
While the Court does have discretion to construe the instant Petition as a civil rights
20
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (see Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 729-30 (9th Cir.
21
1974)), under the circumstances here the Court will not exercise its discretion to convert the
22
Petition into a civil rights complaint. First, there is no indication in the Petition that DeJohnette has
23
exhausted his available administrative remedies. Additionally, prisoners filing civil rights actions,
24
unlike prisoners filing habeas actions, are liable for the full amount of the $350 filing fee. See 28
25
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Naddi v. Hill, 106 F.3d 275 (9th Cir. 1997) (in forma pauperis provisions of
26
§ 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, do not apply to habeas actions).
27
Here, DeJohnette has not paid the filing fee or submitted a completed Declaration in Support of
28
2
1
Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees, including an authorization to deduct the
2
filing fee from his prison trust account, which is required in this district in order to file a complaint
3
in a civil action without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Accordingly, the Court
4
chooses not to exercise its discretion to construe the Petition as a civil rights complaint.
5
Additionally, the federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on
6
diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in: “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if
7
all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in
8
which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . ; or (3) if
9
there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any
10
judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect
11
to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). DeJohnette’s claims arise from an incident that occurred
12
on November 21, 2016, during his incarceration at North Kern State Prison, which is located in
13
Kern County, in the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). DeJohnette alleges that the
14
two individuals involved in the incident are employees of North Kern State Prison, and it is likely
15
that both reside in the vicinity of that institution. There is no evidence that either resides in the
16
Central District of California. It does not appear that the third venue criterion applies at all, or that
17
any basis exists for venue here in the Central District. Thus, even if DeJohnette intended to bring
18
this action as a civil rights action, venue is proper in the Eastern District of California pursuant to
19
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) or (2). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), if venue does not properly lie in
20
this District, then the Court either must dismiss the action, or if it be in the interest of justice, must
21
transfer the action to the proper district. See Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir.
22
1974).
23
Based on the foregoing, no later than June 5, 2017, DeJohnette is ordered to show cause
24
why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim for habeas relief. Alternatively,
25
if DeJohnette wishes to pursue his civil rights claims, no later than June 5, 2017, he may
26
voluntarily dismiss this action using the attached form titled “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
27
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) or (c),” and re-file his claims directly in the
28
3
1
United States District Court of the Eastern District of California as a civil rights action.1 In that
2
case, in addition to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal to be filed in this Court, DeJohnette should
3
also file a separate Civil Rights Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
4
District of California using the Eastern District of California’s Civil Rights Complaint form.
5
If warranted, DeJohnette must also submit the appropriate Eastern District of California forms for
6
a prisoner in a civil action seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. Otherwise, he must pay the full
7
amount of the filing fee (which is now $350 plus any applicable administrative fees).
8
DeJohnette is advised that his failure to timely file a response to this Order to Show
9
Cause, as set forth herein, will result in dismissal of his Petition for failure to state a claim,
10
and/or for failure to prosecute and follow Court orders.
11
The Court Clerk is directed to send DeJohnette a blank Central District form titled “Notice
12
of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) or (c),” and a copy of the Eastern
13
District’s “Prisoner Civil Rights Packet” along with this Order to Show Cause.
14
15
DATED: May 5, 2017
___________________________________
PAUL L. ABRAMS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Because DeJohnette was confined in a prison in Kern County when his rights were
allegedly violated, he should file his action in the Fresno Division of the Eastern District and
address his filing to: Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2500
Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721. (See attached Eastern District of California prisoner Civil
Rights packet).
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?