Johnson v. Arnolds

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/29/15 ORDERING that Petitioners motions for in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 2 , 4 ) are denied as moot; Petitioners application for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1 ) is dismissed without prejudice to refilling it as a § 1983 civil rights action; and the clerk of the court is directed to send petitioner a § 1983 civil rights complaint form and the accompanying directions.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAM’BRI SEAN JOHNSON, SR.,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-02589 AC P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

ERIC ARNOLDS,
Respondent.

16
17
18
19
20

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.
Summary of the Petition
Petitioner alleges that he is being wrongfully denied contact visits with his five sons while

21

incarcerated at California State Prison-Sacramento. ECF No. 1 at 9, 12. Under Title 15, section

22

3173.1 of the California Code of Regulations, visiting restrictions may be imposed on prisoners

23

who have been convicted of certain sex offenses against minors. Petitioner was convicted of

24

multiple sex offenses, including rape with use of force or violence, sodomy with force or

25

violence, and penetration with a foreign object. The minor victim was female. Petitioner alleges

26

that after prison officials learned of the nature of his conviction, they invoked 15 C.C.R. § 3173.1

27

to punish him by limiting his visits with minors to non-contact visits only. ECF No. 1 at 10.

28

Petitioner argues that § 3173.1 is unconstitutionally overbroad and that application of § 3173.1 to
1

1

deny him contact visits with his sons violates his constitutional due process rights because there is

2

no indication that he is a threat to his children, who are all male. Id. at 12. He further argues that

3

his equal protection rights have been violated because he is a member of a specific group

4

(prisoners who are guilty of certain crimes) that has been arbitrarily denied the privilege of

5

contact visits. Id. at 15. Finally, petitioner alleges that in light of the length of his sentence,1

6

denial of contact visits with his sons amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the

7

Eighth Amendment. Petitioner “requests an injunction to have contact visits with his biological

8

children.” Id. at 9.

9

Petitioner’s request for injunctive relief regarding contact visits with his children

10

essentially presents a challenge to the conditions of petitioner’s confinement, which may not be

11

addressed in this habeas action. Habeas jurisdiction exists only for petitioners challenging the

12

legality or duration of their incarceration, not the conditions of confinement. Ramirez v. Galaza,

13

334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner is advised that the proper mechanism for raising a

14

federal challenge to conditions of confinement is through a civil rights action pursuant to 42

15

U.S.C. § 1983. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the petition is

16

dismissed without prejudice to petitioner’s right to file a § 1983 civil rights complaint.

17

WARNING: Petitioner is informed that upon filing a § 1983 civil rights complaint, he will

18

be charged a $350 filing fee. Petitioner is cautioned that this court has made no determination as

19

to the merits of his potential § 1983 claims and has made no findings as to whether his claims

20

would survive past the screening stage, should he elect to pursue a civil rights action.

21

Petitioner is further advised that prior to filing a § 1983 civil rights action, he must first

22

file an administrative grievance with the prison and complete the prison grievance process in

23

order to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 42

24

U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) (the PLRA requires that

25

administrative remedies be exhausted prior to filing suit). See also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S.

26

81 (2006) (exhaustion requires that the prisoner complete the administrative review process in

27
28

1

Petitioner indicates that he was sentenced to a term of 107 years to life. ECF No. 1 at 9.
2

1

accordance with all applicable procedural rules). Petitioner may then seek relief in federal court

2

by filing a § 1983 civil rights complaint.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. Petitioner’s motions for in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 2, 4) are denied as moot;

5

2. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without

6
7
8
9

prejudice to refilling it as a § 1983 civil rights action; and
3. The clerk of the court is directed to send petitioner a § 1983 civil rights complaint
form and the accompanying directions.
DATED: April 29, 2015

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3