(PC) Iseli v. Lynch et al

Filing 10

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 08/28/2024 GRANTING the 5 Motion to Proceed IFP and DIRECTING the Clerk to assign a district judge to this action. District Judge Troy L. Nunley and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson assigned for all further proceedings. It is RECOMMENDED that the 1 Complaint be dismissed. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. New Case Number: 2:24-cv-0800 TLN JDP (PC). (Spichka, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00800-JDP (PC)
ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO
ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE

JEFF LYNCH,
Defendant.

ECF No. 5
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

19

THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS
CLAIM

20

ECF No. 1

21

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

18

22
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 1983, alleging that his rights
23
were violated in connection with a previous conviction. ECF No. 1 at 4-5, 12. This action, as
24
explained below, sounds in habeas corpus and cannot proceed as a civil rights action. I find that
25
it would be futile to convert this action into one for habeas corpus, since plaintiff has already filed
26
multiple habeas petitions attacking the relevant conviction. I will recommend this action be
27
28
1

1

dismissed on that basis. Additionally, I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

2

pauperis. ECF No. 5.

3

Screening Order

4

I.

Screening and Pleading Requirements

5

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental

6

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable

7

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

8

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

9

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

10

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,

11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

12

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not

13

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

14

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere

15

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not

16

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024,

17

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that

18

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264

19

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).

20

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404

21

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it

22

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

23

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017).

24

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements

25

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251,

26

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

27
28
2

1

II.

Analysis

2

Plaintiff’s complaint attacks the validity of a conviction. He argues, among other things,

3

that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct

4

during his trial. ECF No. 1 at 5. Such claims must be brought, if at all, in a petition for habeas

5

corpus. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Challenges to the validity of

6

any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus . . . [t]he

7

Court has long held that habeas is the exclusive vehicle for claims brought by state prisoners that

8

fall within the core of habeas, and such claims may not be brought in a § 1983 action.”). There is

9

little sense in converting this action into one for habeas corpus, because plaintiff has already filed

10

two habeas petitions attacking what appears to be the same conviction. See Iseli v. Lynch, 2:24-

11

cv-00821-JDP; Iseli v. Lynch, 2:24-cv-01220-JDP. Thus, I recommend that this action be

12

dismissed. If plaintiff has any rationale or justification as to why this action should proceed, he

13

may state as much in his objections to these recommendations.

14

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

15

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, is GRANTED.

16

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action.

17

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED for the

18

reasons stated above.

19

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

20

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

21

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the

22

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to

23

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed

24

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

25

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

26

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

27

1991).

28
3

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
Dated:

August 28, 2024

4

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4