Bloodsaw v. Farley

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED PETITION, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/7/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

THEOPRIC BLOODSAW,
Petitioner,

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 12-4036 PJH (PR)

vs.

ORDER DISMISSING
AMENDED PETITION

T. FARLEY,
Respondent.
/

12
13

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison,

14

has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

15

Petitioner’s original petition was dismissed and petitioner has filed an amended petition.

16

BACKGROUND

17

According to the petition, Bloodsaw was convicted in Los Angeles Superior Court of

18

assault, battery, criminal threats, and mayhem. With enhancements, he was sentenced to

19

prison for twenty-one years and four months. The claims in this petition, however, appear

20

to relate to events at the prison where he is held, Pelican Bay State Prison.

21
22
23

DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

24

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody

25

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.

26

§ 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

27

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

28

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

1

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are

2

available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each

3

of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.

4

foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts

5

that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes

6

(quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). “Habeas petitions which

7

appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon

8

v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J.,

9

concurring).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

B. Legal Claims
Petitioner has had at least thirty cases with this court, none of which have been

12

found to have any merit. Judge Fogel, to whom petitioner’s cases previously were

13

assigned, determined that petitioner had had at least three cases dismissed as frivolous,

14

malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and thus denied him leave to proceed in forma

15

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Bloodsaw v. Baron, C 08-04121 JF (PR) (order Nov.

16

19, 2008). The “three strikes” provision of section 1915(g), does not, however, apply to

17

habeas cases. See Naddi v. Hill, 106 F.3d 275, 277 (9th Cir. 1997). Petitioner’s original

18

petition was dismissed with leave to amend as the claims were so unclear that it was not

19

possible to be sure what relief he sought. It appeared that most or all of the claims involved

20

conditions of confinement, in which case it may be that petitioner filed this case as a

21

habeas petition in an effort to avoid the “three strikes” rule.

22

Petitioner’s amended petition has not cured the deficiencies of his prior petition. The

23

amended petition is confusing and rambling. Petitioner appears to raise claims regarding

24

the conditions of his confinement along with claims regarding his underlying arrest in Los

25

Angeles.

26

Claims that do not involve the fact or duration of the petitioner’s confinement are not

27

properly the proper subject of a habeas action. See Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 650-

28

52 (7th Cir. 2000); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action is
2

1

proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890,

2

891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition on basis that challenges

3

to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought in civil rights complaint).

4

Petitioner has failed to show any connection between the events he describes and

5

the length of his confinement. Furthermore, the present claims do not set out facts “that

6

point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes

7

(quoting Aubut, 431 F.2d 689). Conclusory allegations such as “chain conspiracy” or “I am

8

the victim of hate crimes” are not facts.

9

Petitioner has already been granted leave to amend once and it is clear that allowing
any further amendments would be futile. If petitioner wishes to bring an action regarding

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

his conditions of confinement he must file a civil rights action.

12
13

CONCLUSION
The petition is DISMISSED for the reasons set out above. Because reasonable

14

jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is

15

DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for COA). The

16

clerk shall close the file.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

19
20

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.12\Bloodsaw4036.dis.wpd

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3