Cranford v. Perryman et al

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS RE: Respondent's Motion to Dismiss; ORDER DIRECTING Objections to Be Filed Within Twenty-One Days; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge to Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/16/13. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.
SAMANTHA PERRYMAN, et al.,
Respondents.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01308-JLT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE:
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED
WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS
ORDERING DIRECTING CLERK OF THE
COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

17
18
19
20

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The instant petition was filed on August 21, 2013.. (Doc. 1). The petition alleges that, while

21

Petitioner was housed in the Coalinga State Hospital, Coalinga, California, Petitioner was placed in a

22

housing unit wherein he was assaulted by another inmate. Petitioner contends that Respondents

23

Perryman and Havder placed Petitioner in that housing unit despite being aware that the presence of

24

Petitioner’s assailant made an assault on Petitioner more likely. However, nowhere in the petition

25

does Petitioner challenge either his conviction or sentence.

26

DISCUSSION

27
28

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review of
each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from
1

1

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

2

2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only

3

grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation of

4

the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a

5

prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574

6

(9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973); Ramirez v.

7

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper,

8

where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s

9

sentence”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

10

The Ninth Circuit has also held that “[h]abeas corpus jurisdiction also exists when a petitioner

11

seeks expungement of a disciplinary finding from his record if expungement is likely to accelerate the

12

prisoner’s eligibility for parole.” Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989); see also

13

Docken v. Chase, 393 F. 3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2004)(“[W]e understand Bostic’s use of the term

14

‘likely’ to identify claims with a sufficient nexus to the length of imprisonment so as to implicate, but

15

not fall squarely within, the ‘core’ challenges identified by the Preiser Court.”)

16

In contrast to a habeas corpus challenge to the length or duration of confinement, a civil rights

17

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

18

confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea,

19

931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

20

In this case, as mentioned, Petitioner alleges that staff employees of the Coalinga State

21

Hospital placed Petitioner in a housing unit where he was assaulted by an employee he had sued

22

previously. Petitioner claims that Respondents failed to take adequate measures to protect Petitioner

23

or to heed the known risks to Petitioner’s safety when placing him in the housing unit with his

24

assailant. Based on these allegations, Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, not

25

the fact or duration of that confinement. Petitioner does not specify what relief he is seeking;

26

however, the only relief this Court can provide within its habeas jurisdiction relates to the fact or

27

duration of Petitioner’s sentence, neither of which Petitioner is challenging in his petition. Therefore,

28

Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition must be dismissed. The Court is
2

1

aware that Petitioner is currently pursuing a lawsuit on these exact same facts and the exact same

2

defendants in Cranford v. Perryman, Case No. 1:13-cv-00906 JLT.
ORDER

3
4
5

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to assign a United States District
Judge to this case.
RECOMMENDATION

6
7
8

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus petition be
DISMISSED for Petitioner’s failure to state any cognizable federal habeas claims.

9

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

10

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

11

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21

12

days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a

13

copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

14

and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within 10 court days (plus

15

three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate

16

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

17

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez

18

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 16, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3