Cranford v. Price

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction; ORDER DIRECTING That Clerk of Court Enter Judgment and Close File; ORDER DECLINING to Issue Certificate of Appealability, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/26/2014. CASE CLOSED. (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
14
15
16

Petitioner,
v.
BRANDON RICE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01094-JLT
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION (Doc. 1)
ORDER DIRECTING THAT CLERK OF COURT
ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE FILE
ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY

17
18

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas

19

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 18, 2014, Petitioner filed his written consent to the

20

U.S. Magistrate Judge for all purposes. (Doc. 8).

21

The instant petition was filed on July 14, 2014.. Petitioner alleges that he is in custody of the

22

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation serving a life sentence for his 1996

23

conviction for three counts of rape by force. (Doc. 1, p. 1). However, Petitioner does not challenge

24

either his conviction or sentence. Instead, Petitioner raises three grounds for relief in his petition: (1)

25

terrorist threats by another inmate; (2) assault by another inmate; and (3) failure of prison officials to

26

give Petitioner a secure cell where he could be free from assaults by other inmates. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-9).

27
28

DISCUSSION
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review of
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

In this case, as mentioned, Petitioner alleges that he was threatened and then assaulted by

22

another inmate and that prison officials failed to take adequate precautions to safeguard Petitioner and

23

prevent him from being assaulted. The petition candidly acknowledges that Petitioner is challenging

24

the conditions of his confinement. (Doc. 1, p. 3). In making such an acknowledgment, Petitioner, the

25

Court notes, is fully aware of the legal processes of this Court since he has, in the last several years,

26

filed no less than forty-two cases challenging conditions of confinement and at least twenty petitions

27

seeking habeas corpus relief. Based on Petitioner’s experience with the legal system, the Court must

28

give some credence to Petitioner’s own acknowledgement that he is challenging the conditions of his
2

1
2

confinement.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his

3

confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. No relief which the Court could afford

4

based on the claims herein would affect the fact or duration of Petitioner’s sentence. Therefore,

5

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

6

wish to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

7

U.S.C. § 1983.

8
9

Moreover, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner seeking a
writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and

10

an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336

11

(2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28

12

U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(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).

26
27
28
3

1

If a court denied a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability

2

when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. §

3

2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could

4

debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different

5

manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further’.”

6

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

7

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

8

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

9

Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal

10

habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the

11

Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

12

ORDER

13

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

14

1.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction;

15
16

2.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the file; and,

17

3.

The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 26, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4