Cranford v. Employees of Coalinga State Hospital

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE AND DECLINING ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/12/2014. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

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

Case No. 1:14-cv-01321-SAB-HC

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 1)

v.
EMPLOYEES OF COALINGA HOSPITAL,

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE
CASE

Respondents.

16

ORDER DECLINING ISSUANCE OF
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

17
18

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

19 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
20 U.S.C. § 636(c).
21

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 25, 2014.

22 Petitioner claims he is a pre-trial detainee. However, he is currently confined at Coalinga State
23 Hospital pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act.
24

I.

25

DISCUSSION

26
27

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

28 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it

1

1 plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the
2 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th
3 Cir.1990).
This Court has a duty to determine its own subject matter jurisdiction, and lack of subject

4

5 matter jurisdiction can be raised on the Court’s own motion at any time. Fed. R. Civ. P.
6 12(h)(3); CSIBI v. Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 136 n.3 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing City of Kenosha v.
7 Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 511-12 (1973)).

Federal subject matter jurisdiction must always be

8 affirmatively alleged. Fed R. Civ. P. 8(a); Stock West, Inc., v. Confederated Tribes of the
9 Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989).
A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can

10

11 show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas
12 corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his
13 confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez,
14 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section
15 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method
16 for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S.
17 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee
18 Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
In this case, Petitioner claims that hospital staff used excessive and unnecessary force to

19

20 move him into the observational section of Unit 1 of Coalinga State Hospital. (Pet. at 3-4).1
21 Petitioner does not challenge his underlying civil commitment. Petitioner is challenging the
22 conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement.

Therefore,

23 Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable grounds for federal habeas corpus relief and must be
24 dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, he must do so by way of a civil rights
25 complaint. The Court expresses no opinion as to the merits of such a civil rights complaint.
26 Moreover, Petitioner admits that he has filed two related civil rights complaints in this Court.
27 (Pet. at 6).
28

1

Citations to page numbers in Petition refer to the ECF page numbers.

2

1

As it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured by

2 amending the complaint, Petitioner is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the
3 entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
4

II.

5

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

6
A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to

7

8 appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain
9 circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in
10 determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as
11 follows:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

(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).
If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of

28 appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his

3

1 constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve
2 encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
3 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must
4 demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on
5 his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.
In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s

6

7 determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or
8 deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial
9 showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to
10 issue a certificate of appealability.
11

III.

12

ORDER

13
14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED;

16

2.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate the case; and

17

3.

The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated:

November 12, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4