Shannon Riley v. Biter
Filing
26
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction unless Petitioner provides notice of his informed consent and intent to convert the matter to a civil rights action pursuant to 42:1983; Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and all pending motions be DENIED as moot re 22 MOTION to DISMISS filed by Biter ; referred to Judge Ishii,signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/19/2016. Objections to F&R due (30-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)
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. 1:16-cv-00050 AWI MJS (HC)
SHANNON RILEY,
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DENY RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS AND TO RECOMMEND
DISMISSAL OF THE HABEAS CORPUS
PETITION FOR LACK OF
JURISIDCTION
14
15
[Docs. 21-22]
BITER, Warden,
Respondent.
16
17
18
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
19
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent is represented in this action by Yun
20
Hwa Harper, of the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California.
21
I.
Background
22
On December 16, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant petition challenging two
23
separate prison disciplinary proceedings, one occurring on December 24, 2009, and the
24
other on March 5, 2010. In both cases Petitioner was found guilty of disobeying a direct
25
order. (See Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 1.)
26
Petitioner desires to expunge the findings of the disciplinary hearings, but
27
provides no legal authority or argument justifying such relief. (See Pet.) Petitioner does
28
state in his petition that he recently had a parole hearing (Pet. at 8), and the Board of
1
1
Parole Hearings denied Petitioner parole for seven years. (Id. at 45-46.)
2
On December 6, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant federal Petition for Writ of
3
Habeas Corpus in this Court. On April 18, 2016, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss
4
the petition as being filed outside the one-year limitations period prescribed by 28 U.S.C.
5
§ 2244(d). (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 22.) Although Petitioner requested an extension of
6
time to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss, no opposition was filed. Accordingly, it
7
stands ready for adjudication.
8
II.
Discussion
9
An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided Nettles v.
10
Grounds, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13573 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016), and issued a Writ of
11
Mandate on August 18, 2016. In Nettles, the Ninth Circuit overturned its prior decisions
12
in Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2004), and Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d
13
1267 (9th Cir. 1989) and held that challenges to prison disciplinary violations by
14
prisoners with indeterminate sentences fall outside the core of habeas corpus. (Id.) Such
15
challenges must be brought, if at all, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
16
Petitioner admits in his petition that he was convicted of second degree murder, is
17
serving an indeterminate sentence, and is subject to parole. Accordingly, this Court lacks
18
jurisdiction to consider the matter as presented in a habeas corpus petition, and the
19
petition must be dismissed. Respondent’s motion to dismiss under the one year statute
20
of limitations set forth by ADEPA and applicable to habeas petitions, is therefore moot,
21
and the Court recommends its denial.
22
However, rather than simply dismiss the action, a district court may construe a
23
petition for habeas corpus to plead a cause of action under § 1983 after notifying and
24
obtaining informed consent from the prisoner. See Nettles v. Grounds, 2016 U.S. App.
25
LEXIS 13573 at 35-36. Accordingly, the Court provides the following advisement to
26
Petitioner, and recommends that Petitioner be ordered to advise the court whether he
27
desires to dismiss this petition without prejudice, or, alternatively, have the matter
28
converted to a 1983 civil rights action, despite the potential consequences discussed
2
1
below.
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. However, there are distinct advantages and disadvantages to
6
doing so. For instance, the filing fee for a habeas petition is five dollars, and if leave to
7
proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the fee is forgiven. For civil rights cases, however,
8
the fee is now $400 and under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act the prisoner is required
9
to pay it, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way of deductions from income to
10
the prisoner's trust account. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). A prisoner who might be willing
11
to file a habeas petition for which he or she would not have to pay a filing fee might feel
12
otherwise about a civil rights complaint for which the $400 fee would be deducted from
13
income to his or her account. Also, a civil rights complaint which is dismissed as
14
malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim would count as a "strike" under 28
15
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, the Court will only convert the matter to a civil rights complaint
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than a habeas petition, upon Petitioner’s request
19
and acknowledgement of his informed consent.
20
III.
Recommendation
21
Therefore it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be
22
DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction unless Petitioner provides notice of
23
his informed consent and intent to convert the matter to a civil rights action pursuant to
24
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court further RECCOMENDS that Respondent’s motion to
25
dismiss and all pending motions be DENIED as moot.
26
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States
27
District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and
28
Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern
3
1
District of California. Within thirty (30) days after the date of service of this Findings and
2
Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy
3
on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
4
Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed
5
within fourteen (14) days after service of the Objections. The Finding and
6
Recommendation will then be submitted to the District Court for review of the Magistrate
7
Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c). The parties are advised that failure
8
to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
9
Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
August 19, 2016
/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?