Walton v. Kernan
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 03/07/17 granting 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Within 30 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and file the petition for writ of habeas corpus from appended. The clerk of the court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:17-cv-0133 KJN P
S. KERNAN, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This
proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Although plaintiff filed his allegations on a civil rights complaint form, he challenges his
underlying criminal conviction, arguing that his due process rights were violated, and that he
suffered ineffective assistance of counsel. As relief, plaintiff asks the court to vacate his sentence
or reduce his conviction to petty theft. Plaintiff provided copies of his petitions for writ of habeas
corpus filed in state court, as well as the state court rulings.
Habeas corpus “is the exclusive remedy . . . for the prisoner who seeks ‘immediate or
speedier release’ from confinement.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 525 (2011) (quoting
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)). A challenge to the fact or duration of confinement
that would, if successful, result in immediate or speedier release falls within the “core” of habeas
corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-89 (1973). By contrast, challenges to a
prisoner’s conditions of confinement must be brought through a civil rights action, rather than
through a habeas corpus petition. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). Court
records reflect no other cases filed on behalf of plaintiff.
Because plaintiff’s allegations sound in habeas, the instant complaint must be dismissed,
and plaintiff must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the form provided by the Clerk of
Court. Plaintiff is not required to re-file his exhibits. Rather, he may simply refer to the exhibits,
or he may ask the Clerk of Court to append the previously-submitted exhibits to his petition for
writ of habeas corpus once it is filed. (ECF No. 1 at 4-69.)
Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file the petition for writ of habeas corpus or to
otherwise comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.
3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and file the
petition for writ of habeas corpus form appended. Failure to file the petition will result in the
dismissal of this action.
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a petition for writ
of habeas corpus.
Dated: March 7, 2017
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?