Brown v. Montgomery
Filing
8
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Convert Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to Civil Rights Action Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/1/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Twenty Days. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
KAREEM BROWN,
11
Case No. 1:17-cv-01584-LJO- EPG-HC
Petitioner,
12
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
CONVERT PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS TO CIVIL RIGHTS
ACTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
v.
13
WARREN MONTGOMERY,
14
Respondent.
15
16
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
17
18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Given that the instant petition is not cognizable in federal habeas
19 corpus, the undersigned recommends that the petition be converted to a civil rights action under
20 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after obtaining consent from Petitioner.
21
I.
22
BACKGROUND
On November 29, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus.
23
24 Therein, Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty of
25 destruction of state property (i.e., legal volumes) and was required to pay $3,276.09, the cost of
1
26 replacing the destroyed volumes. (ECF No. 1 at 4–5). On December 4, 2017, this Court ordered
27 Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
28
1
Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.
1
1 pursuant to Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). (ECF No. 4). To date,
2 Petitioner has failed to file a response to the order to show cause, and the time for doing so has
3 passed.
4
II.
5
DISCUSSION
6
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a
7 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered
8 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
9 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”
10
A. Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
11
By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in
12 behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he
13 is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
14 § 2254(a). A claim falls within the “core of habeas corpus” when a prisoner challenges “the fact
15 or duration of his confinement” and “seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the
16 shortening of its duration.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). The Ninth Circuit
17 has adopted the rule that a “state prisoner’s claim [that] does not lie at ‘the core of habeas
18 corpus’ . . . must be brought, ‘if at all,’ under § 1983.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 934 (quoting Preiser,
19 411 U.S. at 487; Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n.13 (2011)). Therefore, if “success on
20 [Petitioner]’s claims would not necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from
21 confinement, [Petitioner]’s claim does not fall within ‘the core of habeas corpus,’ and he must
22 instead bring his claim under § 1983.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935 (quoting Skinner, 562 U.S. at 535
23 n.13).
24
In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges on due process grounds a prison disciplinary
25 proceeding in which he was found guilty and was required to pay $3,276.09. (ECF No. 1 at 4–5).
26 Petitioner does not allege that the disciplinary violation resulted in the loss of credits, and it
27 appears that Petitioner may be serving a life sentence. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Therefore, success on
28 Petitioner’s challenge to the disciplinary proceeding would not necessarily lead to immediate or
2
1 earlier release from custody. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable in federal habeas
2 corpus.
3
B. Conversion to § 1983 Civil Rights Action
4
“If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it names the correct
5 defendants and seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so long as it
6 warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an opportunity for
7 the litigant to withdraw or amend his or her complaint.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (quoting Glaus
8 v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)). The Court notes that habeas corpus and
9 prisoner civil rights actions differ in a variety of respects, such as the proper defendants, filing
10 fees, exhaustion requirements, and restrictions on future filings (e.g., the Prison Litigation
11 Reform Act’s three-strikes rule). Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (citing Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d
12 839, 841 (7th Cir. 2011); Glaus, 408 F.3d at 388).
If Petitioner chooses to convert the instant matter to a civil rights action, Petitioner will
13
14 be required to submit a civil rights complaint form that names the proper defendants and seeks
15 appropriate relief. The filing fee for § 1983 civil rights cases is $350, and Petitioner is required to
16 pay the full amount by way of deductions from income to Petitioner’s trust account, even if
17 granted in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).2 Petitioner also may, at his option,
18 voluntarily dismiss his habeas petition without prejudice to refiling his claims as a § 1983 civil
19 rights action. However, Petitioner is forewarned that dismissal and refiling may subject
20 Petitioner to a possible statute of limitations bar as well as other complications as set forth above.
21
III.
22
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that that the petition for writ
23
24 of habeas corpus be converted to a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after obtaining
25 consent from Petitioner.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District
26
27 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
28
2
The Court previously authorized Petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant case. (ECF No. 2).
3
1 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within
2 TWENTY (20) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file
3 written 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.” The assigned
5 United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28
6 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified
7 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d
8 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 1, 2018
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
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?