Emilio Castaneda Tirado v. David Shinn

Filing 3

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. (mba)

1
2

o

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EMILIO CASTANEDA TIRADO,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

Case No. EDCV-17-00125-SVW (KES)
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
HABEAS PETITION

v.
DAVID SHINN, Warden,
Respondent.

16
17

On January 25, 2017, Emilio Castaneda Tirado (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition

18

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

19

§ 2241 (“Petition”). (Dkt. 1.) As more fully explained below, the present Petition

20

must be summarily dismissed because Petitioner is not challenging the legality of

21

his confinement.

22

Initially, the Court notes that, although Petitioner has utilized the form for

23

filing a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Petition would actually be

24

subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because Petitioner is a “prisoner in custody under

25

sentence of a court established by Act of Congress….” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), if he

26

were seeking habeas relief. Petitioner pled guilty to attempted reentry of a removed

27

alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced to a term of 27 months followed by

28
1

1

2 years of supervised release.

2

Castaneda-Tirado, CR-14-3619-DMS-1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2015).

3

of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the United States District Courts the

4

Court “must” dismiss the petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any

5

attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief….”

(Dkt. 1 at 2 ¶ 3.)

See also United States v.
Under Rule 4

6

The Petition alleges that prison authorities have refused to provide Petitioner

7

with a prosthetic leg, thereby inflicting “willful and malicious injury” on him and

8

committing “gross negligence.” (Dkt. 1 at 3-4.) He points to language in his

9

criminal judgment, wherein the sentencing court stated: “The Court STRONGLY

10

recommends that the defendant be placed in a Federal Medical Center and that he

11

be treated for his mental and physical condition. In ADDITION that the defendant

12

be fitted with a prosthetic leg.” (Id. at 8.) See also Castaneda-Tirado, CR-14-3619-

13

DMS-1, Dkt. 23 at 2.

14

“Habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner to

15

challenge the ‘legality or duration’ of confinement.” Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573,

16

574 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)). “A

17

civil rights action, in contrast, is the proper method of challenging ‘conditions of ...

18

confinement.’” Id. (citing Preiser, 411 U.S. at 498-99).

19

The gravamen of Petitioner’s claims is that he has received inadequate

20

medical care in prison. This concerns the conditions of his confinement, rather than

21

the legality or duration of his confinement. In other words, if Petitioner ultimately

22

proved that he had received inadequate medical care, he might be entitled to

23

damages or injunctive relief, but such a finding would not affect the length of his

24

sentence. See Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming

25

dismissal of habeas petition where “[t]he appropriate remedy for [the alleged]

26

constitutional violations, if proven, would be a judicially mandated change in the

27

conditions and/or an award of damages, but not release from confinement”). Thus,

28

he is not seeking relief that he could obtain in a habeas action.
2

1

He might be able seek relief by filing a civil lawsuit under Bivens v. Six

2

Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),

3

which “established that the victims of a constitutional violation by a federal agent

4

have a right to recover damages against the official in federal court….” Carlson v.

5

Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18 (1980); see, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)

6

(analyzing Bivens suit against federal prison officials alleging inadequate medical

7

care). Claims that a prisoner has received inadequate medical care are governed by

8

the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To prevail, a

9

prisoner must show that prison officials were “deliberately indifferent” to his

10

medical needs, that the deprivation of medical care was objectively serious, and that

11

the defendant knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to the

12

prisoner’s health or safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835-37 (1994); Johnson v.

13

Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 1998). However, to the extent Petitioner is

14

able to seek such relief, he must do so in a new civil action.

15

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed

16

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and

17

2255 Cases in the United States District Courts. This dismissal is without prejudice

18

to Petitioner filing a new civil rights action based on the same factual allegations.

19

If Petitioner wishes to do so, he should utilize the form attached to this Order as

20

Exhibit A and review the form instructions attached as Exhibit B.

21

DATED: February 2, 2017

22
____________________________________
STEPHEN V. WILSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

Presented by:
___________________________
KAREN E. SCOTT
United States Magistrate Judge
3