Randall v. Sacramento County
Filing
3
ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/20/16 ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. It is RECOMMENDED that petitioners application for writ of habeas corpus 1 be denied without prejudice to his pursuit of a separate civil rights action. Randomly assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VIRGIL DOUGLAS RANDALL,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-2025 AC P
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER AND FINDINGS &
RECOMMENDATIONS
SACRAMENTO COUNTY,
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or
19
paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). However, the court will
20
not assess a filing fee at this time. Instead, the undersigned will recommend that the petition be
21
summarily dismissed.
22
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
23
(Habeas Rules) requires the court to summarily dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears
24
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
25
court.” “[A] petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it
26
appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted.” Jarvis v.
27
Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).
28
“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical
1
1
imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or
2
a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”
3
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). “[R]elief is available to a prisoner under the
4
federal habeas statute only if success on the claim would ‘necessarily spell speedier release’ from
5
custody.” Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d 992, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Skinner v. Switzer, 562
6
U.S. 521, 525, 535 n.13 (2011)). “[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper,
7
where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s
8
sentence.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). The appropriate remedies for
9
conditions of confinement that constitute cruel and unusual punishment are “a judicially
10
mandated change in conditions and/or an award of damages, but not release from confinement.”
11
Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979).
12
Here petitioner alleges that he is being subjected to hazardous living conditions caused by
13
employee misconduct and the conditions at the prison facility. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. He further
14
alleges that these conditions are causing injury to his lower back, spine, arms, shoulders, feet,
15
fingers, and wrists. Id. at 4. He requests that he be released from prison or transferred to a
16
facility in southern California. Id. at 5. Petitioner is clearly challenging his conditions of
17
confinement and not the fact or duration of his imprisonment. Success on the claim would not
18
necessarily result in a speedier release, because release from custody would not be an appropriate
19
remedy. For these reasons, it will be recommended that the petition be dismissed without
20
prejudice to petitioner pursuing a separate civil rights action.
21
Summary
22
The petition should be dismissed because petitioner is challenging prison conditions and
23
not his sentence, and success on his claims will not result in a speedier release from custody. If
24
petitioner wants to challenge his prison conditions, he may file a civil rights complaint after
25
exhausting his available administrative remedies. The court takes no position on the merits or
26
timeliness of any civil rights complaint petitioner may file.
27
28
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court
randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.
2
1
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for writ of habeas
2
corpus (ECF No. 1) be denied without prejudice to his pursuit of a separate civil rights action.
3
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
4
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days
5
after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
6
objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
7
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections
8
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.
9
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
10
DATED: January 20, 2016
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?