Michael Grimes v. Warden
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This Order is without prejudice to the Petitioner's ability to file the Petition as a First Amended Complaint in his pending civil rights action, Grimes v. Beard, EDCV 15-2267 ODW (AGR). (See Order for Further Details) (kl)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL GRIMES,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent.
16
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. EDCV 17-2140-ODW (AGR)
OPINION AND ORDER ON
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
On October 18, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
19
(“Petition”). Because Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable in habeas under
20
Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. denied, 137 S.
21
Ct. 645 (2017), the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition. This Order is
22
without prejudice to Petitioner’s ability to file the Petition as a First Amended
23
Complaint in his pending civil rights case on the same issues, Grimes v. Beard,
24
EDCV 15-2267 ODW (AGR).
25
I.
26
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
27
28
Petitioner is currently confined in Coalinga State Hospital. (Petition at 1.)
According to his attachments, Petitioner is awaiting trial in Case No.
1
FELJS1600148 on a petition to deem him a sexually violent predator pursuant to
2
Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600. (Id. at 64.)1
3
Grounds One, Two and Three of the Petition challenge a rules violation he
4
incurred while incarcerated at California Institute for Men (“CIM”). He appears to
5
challenge the prison’s policy of requiring him to self-catheterize to provide a
6
urine sample for random drug testing (a non-medical reason). His refusal to do
7
so apparently resulted in a rules violation for refusing to provide a urine sample.
8
Ground Four challenges a parole requirement that he attend AA or NA meetings.
9
II.
10
DISCUSSION
In the en banc decision in Nettles, the Ninth Circuit held that habeas is the
11
12
exclusive vehicle for state prisoner claims if success on those claims would
13
necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration. A civil
14
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “is the exclusive vehicle for claims brought
15
by state prisoners that are not within the core of habeas corpus.” Nettles, 830
16
F.3d at 927. Thus, “[i]f the prisoner’s claim challenges the fact or duration of the
17
conviction or sentence, compliance with AEDPA is mandated, while if the claim
18
challenges any other aspect of prison life, the prisoner must comply with the
19
PLRA.” Id. at 934 (footnote omitted).
Success on Petitioner’s claims would not necessarily lead to his
20
21
immediate or earlier release date from confinement. Petitioner is no longer
22
incarcerated at CIM, where he suffered the rules violation. He is currently at
23
Coalinga awaiting trial on a petition under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600.
24
Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims to do not fall within the core of habeas corpus
25
and this court does not have habeas jurisdiction. Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935.
26
27
28
1
Page citation are to the page numbers assigned by the CM/ECF system
in the header.
2
1
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
2
Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any
3
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the
4
judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”
5
Here, summary dismissal is warranted. In Nettles, the court held that “a
6
district court may construe a petition for habeas corpus to plead a cause of
7
action under § 1983 after notifying and obtaining informed consent from the
8
prisoner” and providing “an opportunity for the litigant to withdraw or amend his
9
or her complaint.” Id. at 936. Petitioner, however, previously filed a civil rights
10
complaint under § 1983 with the same claims, and has already been given leave
11
to file a First Amended Complaint in Grimes v. Beard, EDCV 15-2267 ODW
12
(AGR). Construction of the Petition as a civil rights complaint would create a
13
wholly unnecessary and duplicative action.
14
III.
15
ORDER
16
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily
17
dismissing the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This
18
Order is without prejudice to the Petitioner’s ability to file the Petition as a First
19
Amended Complaint in his pending civil rights action, Grimes v. Beard, EDCV
20
15-2267 ODW (AGR).
21
22
23
DATED: October 26, 2017
OTIS D. WRIGHT II
United States District Judge
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?