Cranford v. Martinez et al

Filing 6

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER DIRECTING Objections to be Filed Within Twenty-One Days; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge to Case, referred to Judge O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/17/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12
13

Petitioner,
v.

14

BRIAN MARTINEZ, et al.,

15

Respondents.

16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00511-JLT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED
WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO
ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

Petitioner is a civil detainee 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 April 11, 2014.. Petitioner alleges that he is a civil detainee,

21

serving an indeterminate commitment in the Coalinga State Hospital, Coalinga, California, pursuant to

22

California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”), codified in California Welfare and Institutions

23

Code § 6600 et seq. Along with the indeterminate term, California law requires the Department of

24

Mental Health (“DMH”) to file an annual report on whether the committed person still meets the

25

definition of a sexually violent predator or whether conditional or unconditional release of the person

26

is warranted. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6605(a). If the DMH determines that conditional or

27

unconditional release is warranted and the State contests that determination, the State must prove

28

beyond a reasonable doubt that the person still meets the definition of a sexually violent predator. §
1

1

6605(b)-(d). If, on the other hand, the DMH determines that the person still meets the definition of a

2

sexually violent predator, the person may petition the court to be released. § 6608(a). In such a case,

3

the person bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is no longer a sexually

4

violent predator. § 6608(i).
In this case, however, Petitioner does not challenge either the original finding that he is a

5
6

sexually violent predator or any subsequent proceedings regarding his status as an SVP and his

7

ongoing, indeterminate commitment. Instead, Petitioner contends that he is being denied access to the

8

courts by being denied writing supplies, e.g., envelopes, stationery, postage, etc. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-4).1

9

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

10
11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26
1

27
28

The Court takes judicial notice of its own docket and files. In doing so, the Court notes that Petitioner has filed, within
the space of one week, four separate habeas corpus petitions regarding the conditions of his commitment at the Coalinga
State Hospital. The Court also notes that, since his original commitment, Petitioner has filed no less than 41 other civil
rights and habeas corpus cases in this district.

2

1

not fall squarely within, the ‘core’ challenges identified by the Preiser Court.”)
In contrast to a habeas corpus challenge to the fact or duration of confinement, a civil rights

2
3

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

4

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

5

931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
In this case, as mentioned, Petitioner alleges that he is being denied access to the courts by

6
7

being deprived of writing supplies that would permit him to file additional cases and litigate existing

8

ones. As relief, Petitioner requests an order requiring Respondents to produce 48 manila envelopes and

9

folders, typing paper, and unlimited copying services, unlimited postage, and unlimited access to the

10

legal research materials. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Petitioner is thus challenging the conditions of his

11

confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. No relief requested by Petitioner in his

12

petition would affect the fact or duration of Petitioner’s current commitment. Therefore, Petitioner is

13

not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to

14

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

15

1983. 2

16

///

17
2

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court notes Petitioner has field numerous cases in this District: Cranford v. Gomez, Case No. 1:93-cv-05756;
Cranford v. Director of C D C, Case No. 1:94-cv-05649; Cranford v. Chacon, Case No. 1:96-cv-05848; Cranford v.
Newland, 2:94-cv-00592; Cranford v. Gomez, Case No.: 2:94-cv-01773; Cranford v. Willams, Case No.: 2:94-cv-02076;
Cranford v. Thor, Case No.: 2:95-cv-00865; Cranford v. Taylor, Case No.: 1:07-cv-01136; Cranford v. Nickels, Case No.:
1:07-cv-01812; Cranford v. Estrellado, Case No.: 1:07-cv-01829; Cranford v. Salber, Case No.: 1:08-cv-00063;
Cranford v. Manion, Case No.: 1:08-cv-00978; Cranford v. Avila, 1:08-cv-01734; Cranford v. Badagon, Case No.: 1;11cv-00736; Archie Cranford v. Ahlin, Case No.:1:11-cv-1199; Cranford v. Medina, Case No.: 1:13-cv-00210; Cranford v.
Medina, Case No.: 1:13-cv-00211; Cranford v. Medina, Case No.: 1:13-cv-00459; Cranford v. Valley, Case No.: 1:13-cv00533; Cranford v. Perryman, Case No.:1:13-cv-00581; Cranford v. Perryman, Case No.:1:13-cv-00763; Cranford v.
Perryman, Case No.: 1:13-cv-00773; Cranford v. Perryman, Case No.: 1:13-cv-00853; Cranford v. Perryman, Case No.:
1:13-cv-854; Cranford v. Perryman, Case No.: 1:13-cv-00906; Cranford v. Perryman, 1:13-cv-01308; Cranford v.
Badagon, Case No.: 1:13-cv-01496; Cranford v. Smith, Case No.: 1:13-cv-01555; Cranford v. King, Case No.: 1:13-cv01658; Cranford v. Smith, Case No.:1:13-cv-01886; Cranford v. Crawford, Case No.: 1:13-cv-00055; Cranford v. Wyatt,
Case No.: 1:13-cv-00136; Cranford v. Tinna, Case No.: 1:14-cv-00171; Cranford v. Adams, Case No.: 1:14-cv-00174;
Archie Cranford v. Ceballos, Case No.: 1;14-cv-00210; Cranford v. Brain, Case No.: 1:14-cv-00221;
Cranford v. Palos, Case No.: 1:14-cv-00242; Cranford v. Adams, Case No.: 1:14-cv-00252; Cranford v. Seward, Case No.:
1:14-cv-00277; Cranford v. Martinez, Case No.: 1:14-cv-00333; Cranford v. S., Case No.: 1:14-cv-00439; Cranford v.
O'Brin, Case No.: 1:14-cv-00499; Cranford v. King, Case No.: 1:14-cv-00501; Cranford v. Martinez, Case No.: 1:14-cv00511; Cranford v. Martinez, Case No.: 1:14-cv-00513. Of these, 22 are still ongoing and of these four were filed during
April 2014, two in March 2014, six in February 2014 and 2 in January 2014. Of those that have been closed, not one has
been determined to have merit. The suggestion that prison official have interfered with his access to the Court is patently
ludicrous.

3

ORDER

1
2
3

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

4
5
6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the

11

court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

12

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten

13

(10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then

14

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised

15

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

16

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 17, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4