Archie Cranford v. Smith
Filing
4
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to 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 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/7/14: Thirty-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)
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. 1:14-cv-00647 MJS (HC)
ARCHIE CRANFORD,
12
v.
13
14
15
EBONY SMITH,
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
Respondent. [Doc. 1]
16
17
18
19
Petitioner is a civil detainee 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 1, 2014. (Pet.,
21
ECF No. 1.) In the petition, Petitioner alleges that while in prison he was forced to use
22
dentures that caused severe pain and bleeding. (Id.)
23
I.
DISCUSSION
24
A.
25
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:
26
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.
27
Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal
28
1
1
The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a
2
petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the
3
respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A
4
petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it
5
appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis
6
v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).
7
B.
8
The instant petition must be dismissed because it does not challenge the fact or
9
Failure to State Cognizable Claim
duration of Petitioner’s confinement.
10
A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner
11
can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. §
12
2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the
13
“legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.
14
1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee
15
Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
16
In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method
17
for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500
18
U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory
19
Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
20
Petitioner’s claims arise out of his being forced to use dentures that cause pain
21
and bleeding. Such claims do not implicate the fact or duration of his confinement, but
22
rather seek relief from conditions of confinement. Thus, they are not cognizable grounds
23
for federal habeas corpus relief and must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue
24
his claims, he must do so by way of a civil rights complaint. The Court expresses no
25
opinion as to the merits of such a civil rights complaint.
26
As it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured
27
by amending the complaint, Petitioner is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal
28
of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en
2
1
banc).
2
In an appropriate case a habeas petition may be construed as a Section 1983
3
complaint. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251, 92 S. Ct. 407, 30 L. Ed. 2d 418
4
(1971). Although the Court may construe a habeas petition as a civil rights action, it is
5
not required to do so. Since the time when the Wilwording case was decided there have
6
been significant changes in the law. For instance, the filing fee for a habeas petition is
7
five dollars, and if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the fee is forgiven. For
8
civil rights cases, however, the fee is now $400 and under the Prisoner Litigation Reform
9
Act the prisoner is required to pay it, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way of
10
deductions from income to the prisoner's trust account. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). A
11
prisoner who might be willing to file a habeas petition for which he or she would not have
12
to pay a filing fee might feel otherwise about a civil rights complaint for which the $400
13
fee would be deducted from income to his or her account. Also, a civil rights complaint
14
which is dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim would count as a
15
"strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is not true for habeas cases.
16
In view of these potential pitfalls for Petitioner if the petition were construed as a
17
civil rights complaint, it is recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice to
18
allow Petitioner to present the claims in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
19
1983, rather than a habeas petition, which will be assigned a separate civil number. The
20
Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank civil rights complaint form along with a copy
21
of this Order.
22
II.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
23
Therefore it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be
24
DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner's right to file a civil rights action pursuant to
25
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to assign a District
26
Court Judge to the present matter.
27
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
28
Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636
3
1
(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,
2
Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any
3
party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a
4
document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
5
Recommendations." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen
6
(14) days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court
7
will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c). The
8
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the
9
right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 7, 2014
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
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?