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)
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?