Barrera v. American Correctional Solutions, et al.

Filing 5

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 5/23/17 recommending that petition for a writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed. F&R referred to Judge District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

YASIR MEHMOOD, et al.,

9
10
11

No. 2:16-cv-0036-KJM-CMK-P

Petitioner,
vs.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL
SOLUTIONS, et al.,

12
Respondent.
13
/
14
15
16
17

Petitioner, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus on behalf of his cellmate, Marco Barrera, also a pretrial detainee.
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary

18

dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any

19

exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the

20

instant case, it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief.

21

Here, there are several defects in the petition as filed. First, petitioner does not

22

have standing to bring this action on behalf of another inmate. Assuming petitioner had intended

23

to proceed on a “next friend” status, petitioner does not meet the prerequisites for “next friend”

24

standing. There are two prerequisites to “next friend” standing:

25
26

First, a next friend must provide an adequate explanation – such as
inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability – why the
real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute
1

1
2
3

the action. Second, the next friend must be truly dedicated to the
best interest of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate and
it has been further suggested that a next friend must have some
significant relationship with the real party in interest. The burden
is on the next friend clearly to establish the propriety of his status
and thereby justify the jurisdiction of this court.

4
Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 US 149, 163-64 (1990) (citations omitted). Here, petitioner fails to
5
provide an adequate explanation as to why Mr. Barrera is incapable of representing himself.
6
Petitioner indicates Mr. Barrera is suffering from medical problems, but there is nothing in the
7
petition to indicate Mr. Barrera has mental disabilities or is otherwise unable to appear on his
8
own behalf. In addition, there is nothing in the petition to suggest there is any significant
9
relationship between petitioner and Mr. Barrera, nor does petitioner explain his interest in this
10
action. Therefore, even if petitioner was attempting to proceed as a “next friend,” he has not met
11
the prerequisits and therefore has no standing to proceed in this action. See id.
12
Second, even if petitioner had standing for this action, it is clear from the face of
13
the petition that neither petitioner nor Mr. Barrera are entitled to federal habeas relief. When a
14
state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody – either the fact of confinement or the
15
duration of confinement – and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to an
16
earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas
17
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also
18
Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583,
19
586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Where a prisoner challenges the conditions of confinement, as
20
opposed to the fact or duration of confinement, his remedy lies in a civil rights action under 42
21
U.S.C. § 1983. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Skinner v.
22
Switzer, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 1298-99 n.13 (2011) (stating that “when a prisoner’s claim would not
23
‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ that claim does not lie at ‘the core of habeas corpus’ and may
24
be brought, if at all, under § 1983"). Any claim that does not necessarily shorten an inmate’s
25
incarceration, if successful, falls outside the scope of habeas jurisdiction. See Blair v. Martel,
26
2

1

645 F.3d 1151, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir.

2

2014) (discussing loss of good-time credits); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir.

3

2016) (discussing the impact of a prison disciplinary violations in determining suitability for

4

parole). Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cannot be used to challenge the conditions of confinement, and

5

42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be used to challenge the fact or duration of confinement.

6

Here, the issue raised in the petition appears to be the medical treatment Mr.

7

Barrera needs but is not receiving. The claim, therefore, is a challenge to the conditions of

8

confinement, and would necessarily be raised, if at all, in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

9

§ 1983. There may be times where it is possible to construe a petition for habeas corpus to plead

10

a cause of action under § 1983, but this is not the case. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936. Given the

11

issue of standing discussed above, the respondents named, and the claims raised, and the

12

different exhaustion requirements under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the

13

undersigned does not find this case amenable to such conversion.

14
15

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s petition for
a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be summarily dismissed.

16

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

17

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

18

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

19

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

20

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.

21

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

22
23
24
25

DATED: May 23, 2017
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
3