Cranford v. Medina

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, DENYING 4 Motion to Amend as MOOT, DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Terminate Action, and DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 4/2/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Attachments: # 1 1983 Complaint Form)(Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12
13
14

Petitioner,
v.
P.T. RENEE MEDINA,

15

Case No. 1:13-cv-00211-SAB (HC)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING MOTION TO
AMEND AS MOOT, DIRECTING CLERK OF
COURT TO TERMINATE ACTION, AND
DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

Respondent.
(ECF Nos. 1 & 4)

16
17

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

18

U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of

19

the United States magistrate judge. Local Rule 305(b).

20

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 8, 2013.
I.
DISCUSSION

21
22
23

A.

24

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary

25

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it

26

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4

27

Failure to State Cognizable Claim

of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990).

28
1

1

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show that

2

"he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus

3

petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his

4
confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
5
6

U.S. 475, 485 (1973)); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section

7

2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method

8

for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S.

9

136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes

10
11

to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
In the instant petition, Petitioner contends that he has been subjected to extreme pain by

12
13
14

the delay in delivering his medication.

Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his

confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to

15

habeas corpus relief, and this petition must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his

16

claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

17
18
19

B.

Certificate of Appealability

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases now requires a district court to rule
on whether a petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the same order in which the

20
21

petition is denied. The requirement that a petitioner seek a certificate of appealability is a gate-

22

keeping mechanism that protects the Court of Appeals from having to devote resources to

23

frivolous issues, while at the same time affording petitioners an opportunity to persuade the Court

24

that, through full briefing and argument, the potential merit of claims may appear. Lambright v.

25

Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000). However, a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas

26

corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal

27
is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003).
28
2

1

The controlling statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2253, provides as follows:

2

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district
judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the
circuit in which the proceeding is held.

3
4

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity
of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person
charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such
person's detention pending removal proceedings.

5
6
7

(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may
not be taken to the court of appeals from--

8
9

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention
complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

10

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

11

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

12
13
14

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue
or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

15

This Court will issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial

16

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial

17

showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that

18

matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues

19

presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further’.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

20

U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

21

In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial

22

showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of

23

appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that Petitioner has failed to show an

24

entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate

25

of appealability.

26

///

27

///

28
3

1

II.

2

ORDER

3

Based on the foregoing,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED;

6

2.

Petitioner’s motion to amend filed on February 21, 2013, is DENIED as MOOT;

7

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action;

8

4.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Petitioner a blank civil rights

9

complaint form for prisoners seeking relief 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and

10

5.

The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
Dated:
20

April 2, 2013

_

DEAC_Signature-END:

21

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
i1eed4

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4