Taylor v. Rowe, et al.
Filing
5
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/28/2013 recommending that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 7/1/2013. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
Case No. 1:13-cv-00752 MJS (HC)
JEFFREY LAMONT TAYLOR,
12
v.
13
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
Petitioner, DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILING TO
STATE COGNIZABLE CLAIM
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO
THE PRESENT MATTER
14
15
DR. M. ROWE, et al.,
Respondents. [Doc. 1]
16
17
18
19
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
20
Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 21, 2013.
21
(Pet., ECF No. 1.) In the petition, Petitioner alleges that he was placed into
22
administrative segregation for no reason, is being tortured, and is not being provided
23
mental health services. (Pet. at 3.)
24
I.
DISCUSSION
25
A.
26
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:
27
If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must
dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.
28
Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal
1
1
2
The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a
3
petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the
4
respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A
5
petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it
6
appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis
7
v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).
8
B.
9
The instant petition must be dismissed because it does not challenge the fact or
10
Failure to State Cognizable Claim
duration of Petitioner’s confinement.
11
A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner
12
can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. §
13
2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the
14
“legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.
15
1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee
16
Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
17
In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method
18
for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500
19
U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory
20
Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
21
Petitioner’s claims do not implicate the fact or duration of his confinement.
22
Petitioner seeks relief for being placed in administrative segregation, being tortured, and
23
not being provided adequate medical care. (Pet.) Petitioner does not challenge his
24
conviction or sentence. Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable grounds for federal habeas
25
corpus relief and must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, he
26
must do so by way of a civil rights complaint. The Court expresses no opinion as to the
27
merits of such a civil rights complaint.
28
As it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured
2
1
by amending the complaint, Petitioner is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal
2
of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en
3
banc).
4
In an appropriate case a habeas petition may be construed as a Section 1983
5
complaint. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251, 92 S. Ct. 407, 30 L. Ed. 2d 418
6
(1971). Although the Court may construe a habeas petition as a civil rights action, it is
7
not required to do so. Since the time when the Wilwording case was decided there have
8
been significant changes in the law. For instance, the filing fee for a habeas petition is
9
five dollars, and if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the fee is forgiven. For
10
civil rights cases, however, the fee is now $350 and under the Prisoner Litigation Reform
11
Act the prisoner is required to pay it, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way of
12
deductions from income to the prisoner's trust account. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). A
13
prisoner who might be willing to file a habeas petition for which he or she would not have
14
to pay a filing fee might feel otherwise about a civil rights complaint for which the $350
15
fee would be deducted from income to his or her prisoner account. Also, a civil rights
16
complaint which is dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim would
17
count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is not true for habeas cases.
18
In view of these potential pitfalls for Petitioner if the petition were construed as a
19
civil rights complaint, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner to present
20
the claims in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than a habeas
21
petition, which will be assigned a separate civil number. The Clerk of Court shall send
22
Petitioner a blank civil rights complaint form along with a copy of this Order.
23
II.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
24
Therefore it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be
25
DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner's right to file a civil rights action pursuant to
26
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to assign a District
27
Court Judge to the present matter.
28
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
3
1
Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636
2
(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,
3
Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any
4
party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a
5
document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
6
Recommendations." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen
7
(14) days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court
8
will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c). The
9
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the
10
right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated:
15
May 28, 2013
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:
16
Michael J. Seng
92b0h
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?