Ponce v. Baughman

Filing 6

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 05/29/18 RECOMMENDING that petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus 1 be summarily dismissed. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARLOS ESPARZA PONCE,

12

No. 2:17-cv-0450-KJM-CMK-P

Petitioner,

13

vs.

14

D. BAUGHMAN,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Respondent.
/

16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

18

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for

19

a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1).

20

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

In the

When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody – either the fact of

25

confinement or the duration of confinement – and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is

26

entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is cognizable in a petition for a writ
1

1

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973);

2

see also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49

3

F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Where a prisoner challenges the conditions of

4

confinement, as opposed to the fact or duration of confinement, his remedy lies in a civil rights

5

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1985); see

6

also Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 1298-99 n.13 (2011) (stating that “when a prisoner’s

7

claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ that claim does not lie at ‘the core of habeas

8

corpus’ and may be brought, if at all, under § 1983"). Any claim that does not necessarily

9

shorten an inmate’s incarceration, if successful, falls outside the scope of habeas jurisdiction.

10

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

11

F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussing loss of good-time credits); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d

12

922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussing the impact of a prison disciplinary violations in

13

determining suitability for parole). Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cannot be used to challenge the

14

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

15

of confinement.

16

Here, petitioner is challenging his gang validation and placement in administrative

17

segregation based thereon. The claim, therefore, is a challenge to the conditions of confinement,

18

and would necessarily be raised, if at all, in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

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

20

of action under § 1983, but this is not the case. See Nettles, 830 F.3d 922, 936 (9th Cir. 2016).

21

Given the respondent named, the claims raised, and the different exhaustion requirements under

22

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the undersigned does not find this case amenable to

23

such conversion.

24

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s petition for

25

a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be summarily dismissed.

26

///
2

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7
8
9
10

DATED: May 29, 2018
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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