Cranford v. Medina

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, DIRECTING Clerk of Court to TERMINATE ACTION, and DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 6/6/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Petitioner,

13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

v.
RENEE MEDINA,

15

Respondent.

16

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00459-SAB (HC)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF
COURT TO TERMINATE ACTION, AND
DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
(ECF No. 1)

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

17
18

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

19

States magistrate judge. Local Rule 305(b).
Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 29, 2013. Petitioner

20
21

indicates that he is currently incarcerated at Coalinga State Hospital. For the reasons explained below,

22

the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed.

23

I.

24

DISCUSSION

25

A.

Preliminary Review of Petition

26

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

27

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

28

///
1

1

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

2

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

3

B.

Failure to State Cognizable Claim

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485

8

(1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast,

9

a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the

10

conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S.

11

at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section

12

2254 Cases.
In the instant petition, Petitioner contends that staff at Coalinga State Hospital are attempting

13
14

to prevent him from litigating his 1983 civil right action pending in this Court in case number 1:13-cv-

15

00210-GSA (HC). More specifically, Petitioner contends that on March 14, 2013, a unit inspection

16

was conducted in which Petitioner was advised that he could not participate in certain activities unless

17

he dropped his civil rights action. (Pet. at 3.) Petitioner also contends that after he filed his 1983

18

action, he was forced to share a dorm with another mentally disabled individual who engaged in

19

offensive behavior. (Pet. at 4.) Petitioner requests that certain staff be restrained from working in his

20

unit.

21

Petitioner’s claims challenge the conditions of his confinement not the execution or validity of

22

his confinement. Accordingly, Petitioner cannot proceed by way of § 2254, and the instant petition for

23

writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed. If Petitioner wishes to proceed on these claims, he must do

24

so by way of some other legal avenue.

25

C.

Certificate of Appealability

26

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases requires the district court to issue or

27

deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the petitioner. The

28

requirement that a petitioner seek a certificate of appealability is a gate-keeping mechanism that
2

1

protects the Court of Appeals from having to devote resources to frivolous issues, while at the same

2

time affording petitioners an opportunity to persuade the Court that, through full briefing and

3

argument, the potential merit of claims may appear. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th

4

Cir. 2000). However, a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to

5

appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances.

6

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2253,

7

provides as follows:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

(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.
(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.
(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—
(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
(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.
(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.
(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or
issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

21
This Court will issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial
22
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial
23

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

24
matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues
25

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

26
U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).
27
28
3

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

II.

6

ORDER

7

Based on the foregoing,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED;

10

2.

The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action; and

11

3.

The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated:

June 6, 2013

_

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4