Tommy Joe Holmes v. Scribner
Filing
6
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Dismiss 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Failing to State Cognizable Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/15/15. Referred to Judge Ishii, Thirty-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)
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. 1:15-cv-00509 AWI MJS (HC)
TOMMY JOE HOMES,
12
v.
13
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
Petitioner, DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILING TO
STATE COGNIZABLE CLAIM
[Doc. 1]
14
15
A.K. SCRIBNER,
Respondent.
16
17
18
19
Petitioner is a state prisoner 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 April 2, 2015. (Pet.,
21
ECF No. 1.) In the petition, Petitioner alleges violations of his due process and equal
22
protection rights under the First, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
23
(Id. at 1.) Although unclear, it appears that Petitioner is challenging the denial of a 42
24
U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights matter previously filed with this court and prison administrative
25
decisions that resulted in his placement in administrative segregation. (Id.)
26
I.
DISCUSSION
27
A.
28
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:
Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal
1
1
2
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.
3
The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a
4
petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the
5
respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A
6
petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it
7
appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis
8
v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).
9
10
11
B.
Failure to State Cognizable Claim
The instant petition must be dismissed because it does not challenge the fact or
duration of Petitioner’s confinement.
12
A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner
13
can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. §
14
2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the
15
“legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.
16
1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee
17
Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
18
In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method
19
for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500
20
U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory
21
Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
22
Petitioner’s claims do not implicate the fact or duration of his confinement.
23
Petitioner seeks relief from the conditions of his confinement. (See Pet.) Petitioner
24
challenges the actions of the federal court in denying his civil rights action, and attempts
25
to again present his claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference. (Pet. at 4-9.)
26
Further, Petitioner claims that he was improperly placed in administrative segregation.
27
(Id. at 6.)
28
Petitioner does not challenge his underlying conviction. Nor does Petitioner allege
2
1
that the administrative proceedings resulted in the loss of good time credits that
2
increased the duration of his sentence. Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable grounds
3
for federal habeas corpus relief and must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue
4
his claims, he must do so by way of a civil rights complaint. The Court expresses no
5
opinion as to the merits of such a civil rights complaint.
6
As it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured
7
by amending the complaint, Petitioner is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal
8
of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en
9
banc).
10
In an appropriate case a habeas petition may be construed as a Section 1983
11
complaint. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251, 92 S. Ct. 407, 30 L. Ed. 2d 418
12
(1971). Although the Court may construe a habeas petition as a civil rights action, it is
13
not required to do so. Since the time when the Wilwording case was decided there have
14
been significant changes in the law. For instance, the filing fee for a habeas petition is
15
five dollars, and if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the fee is forgiven. For
16
civil rights cases, however, the fee is now $400 and under the Prisoner Litigation Reform
17
Act the prisoner is required to pay it, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way of
18
deductions from income to the prisoner's trust account. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). A
19
prisoner who might be willing to file a habeas petition for which he or she would not have
20
to pay a filing fee might feel otherwise about a civil rights complaint for which the $400
21
fee would be deducted from income to his or her account. Also, a civil rights complaint
22
which is dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim would count as a
23
"strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is not true for habeas cases.
24
In view of these potential pitfalls for Petitioner if the petition were construed as a
25
civil rights complaint, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner to present
26
the claims in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than a habeas
27
petition, which will be assigned a separate civil number. The Clerk of Court shall send
28
Petitioner a blank civil rights complaint form along with a copy of this Order.
3
1
II.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
2
Therefore it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be
3
DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner's right to file a civil rights action pursuant to
4
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
5
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
6
Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636
7
(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,
8
Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any
9
party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a
10
document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
11
Recommendations." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen
12
(14) days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court
13
will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c).
14
Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
15
waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
16
839 (9th Cir. 2014).
17
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 15, 2015
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?