Dukes v. Warden
Filing
5
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Melvin Dukes; referred to Judge Drozd; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Assign District Court Judge to the Present Matter,signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/18/16. *New case number is: 1:16-cv-1325 DAD-MJS (HC)* 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
12
Case No. 1:16-cv-01325 MJS (HC)
MELVIN DUKES,
13
v.
14
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
15
16
17
WARDEN,
Respondent.
18
19
20
21
22
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.
Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 8,
2016. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) Due to the marginal legibility of the petition, the Court was
23
unable to determine Petitioner’s crime of conviction or his claims and factual assertions.
24
(Id.) However, it appeared that Petitioner’s main assertion related to loss of property
25
26
27
while incarcerated. (Id.) Thus, while Petitioner asserted that he was entitled to relief, it
did not appear that his claims implicated the fact or length of his detention.
On September 21, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause why the
28
1
1
petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 4.)
2
Over thirty days have passed, and Petitioner has not filed a response to the order to
3
show cause.
4
I.
Discussion
5
A.
6
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:
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.
7
8
Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal
The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a
9
petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the
10
respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A
11
petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it
12
appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis
13
v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).
14
B.
Failure to State Cognizable Claim
15
A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner
16
can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. §
17
2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the
18
“legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.
19
1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee
20
Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
21
In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method
22
for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500
23
U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory
24
Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
25
A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a state
26
prisoner only on the ground that the custody is in violation of the Constitution, laws, or
27
treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(a), 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529
28
2
1
U.S. 362, 375 n.7, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000); Wilson v. Corcoran, 131
2
S. Ct. 13, 16, 178 L. Ed. 2d 276 (2010).
3
Federal habeas relief is not available to retry a state issue that does not rise to the
4
level of a federal constitutional violation. Wilson v. Corcoran, 131 S.Ct. at 16 (2010);
5
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 116 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1991).
6
Alleged errors in the application of state law are not cognizable in federal habeas
7
corpus. Souch v. Schaivo, 289 F.3d 616, 623 (9th Cir. 2002) (an ex post facto claim
8
challenging state court's discretionary decision concerning application of state
9
sentencing law presented only state law issues and was not cognizable in a proceeding
10
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996).
11
The Court accepts a state court's interpretation of state law. Langford, 110 F.3d at 1389.
12
In a habeas corpus proceeding, this Court is bound by the California Supreme Court's
13
interpretation of California law unless the interpretation is deemed untenable or a veiled
14
attempt to avoid review of federal questions. Murtishaw v. Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 964
15
(9th Cir. 2001).
16
In this case, Petitioner’s claims are unclear. The petition is barely legible, but it
17
appears that Petitioner feels correctional officers have taken action contrary to state laws
18
and regulations; no alleged violation of federal law appears. Therefore, even if his claims
19
implicate the fact or duration of his confinement, it does not appear that he has alleged a
20
sufficient federal violation.
21
Given the petition’s lack of legibility and the failure to allege a federal basis for any
22
claims, the Court concludes Petitioner has not presented claims entitled to relief by way
23
of a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus.
24
II.
Recommendation
25
Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas
26
corpus be DISMISSED. The Court orders the Clerk of Court to assign a district court
27
judge to the instant matter.
28
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Judge,
3
1
pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days after
2
being served with the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written
3
objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be
4
captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." Any reply
5
to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the
6
objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
7
may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d
8
834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).
9
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 18, 2016
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
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?