Charles Cooper v. Los Angeles Sherrif Jail

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin, re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) 1 . IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to file the petition in case numbers CV 17-2463-FMO (AGR) and CV 17-2639-FMO (AGR) as a Motion for Appointment of Counsel and to Compel Discovery. (See Order for details.) (mp)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHARLES COOPER, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 v. LOS ANGELES SHERIFF JAIL, 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CV 17-5226-FMO (AGR) ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE For the reasons discussed below, the Court summarily dismisses this action without prejudice. 18 I. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Petitioner is an state inmate. He indicates on the form petition that he does 21 not challenge a conviction, sentence, prison discipline, or parole problem. 22 (Petition at 2.) Instead, he seeks (1) appointment of counsel in each of his two 23 pending civil rights actions in this Court,1 and (2) certain discovery relating to one 24 or both of those actions. (Id. at 5.) 25 26 27 28 1 Petitioner correctly identifies one pending case’s number, No. CV 172463-FMO (AGR). He mistakenly identifies the other pending case as No. CV 16-0088-FMO (AGR). That case was dismissed and is closed. The Court construes the Petition as referring to Petitioner’s other pending civil rights case, No. CV 17-2639-FMO (AGR). 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 4 Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any 5 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the 6 judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Here, 7 summary dismissal is warranted. 8 “[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his 9 physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is 10 entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his 11 sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 12 475, 500 (1973). 13 “Suits challenging the validity of the prisoner’s continued incarceration lie 14 within ‘the heart of habeas corpus,’ whereas ‘a § 1983 action is a proper remedy 15 for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of 16 his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.’” Ramirez v. Galaza, 17 334 F.3d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 498-99)). The 18 Ninth Circuit has held that “a § 1983 action is the exclusive vehicle for claims 19 brought by state prisoners that are not within the core of habeas corpus.” Nettles 20 v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 21 645 (2017). 22 The Petition lists two grounds for relief. Ground One seeks appointment of 23 counsel in Petitioner’s two civil rights cases. Ground Two seeks discovery of a 24 video from Twin Towers in support of one or both civil rights cases. Petitioner 25 clearly does not challenge his conviction, sentence or the duration of his 26 confinement. His habeas petition must be summarily dismissed. 27 28 In the interests of justice and efficiency, the Court will direct the Clerk to file the petition as a motion in each of Petitioner’s two pending civil rights cases, so 2 1 that his requests for appointment of counsel and for discovery may be addressed 2 in those cases. 3 III. 4 CONCLUSION 5 6 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed without prejudice. 7 The Clerk is directed to file the petition in case numbers CV 17-2463-FMO 8 (AGR) and CV 17-2639-FMO (AGR) as a Motion for Appointment of Counsel and 9 to Compel Discovery. 10 11 DATED: July 25, 2017 /s/ FERNANDO M. OLGUIN United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?