Woods v. Valenzuela

Filing 17

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING RESPONDENTS (14 in case 4:14-cv-01936-CW; and 11 in case 4:14-cv-02993-CW) MOTION TO DISMISS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

FREDERICK NEWHALL WOODS,

5
6
7

Petitioner,
v.
ELVIN VALENZUELA, Warden,

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Respondent.
________________________________/
JAMES SCHOENFELD,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. C 14-1936 CW

No. C 14-2993 CW

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING
RESPONDENT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
ELVIN VALENZUELA, Warden,
Respondent.
________________________________/

Petitioners Frederick Newhall Woods and James Schoenfeld have
each filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the
most recent denial of parole in their respective cases.
Respondent Elvin Valenzuela has filed identical motions to dismiss
in these related habeas cases.

Petitioners oppose the motions.

Having considered the motions and the entire records in these
cases, the Court DENIES the motions to dismiss.

Case No. 14-1936,

Docket No. 14; Case No. 14-2993, Docket No. 11.
DISCUSSION
Respondent argues that both petitions should be dismissed
because, even if successful, the petitions will only result in a
new parole hearing, which will not necessarily lead to immediate

1

or speedier release from confinement.

2

main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a

3

petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint

4

under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended,

5

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

6

to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas

7

corpus.’”

8

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)).

9

challenge to the circumstances of his confinement, however, may be

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

“‘Federal law opens two

Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or

Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting

brought under § 1983.”

“An inmate's

Id.

Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks

12

“‘immediate or speedier release’” from confinement.

13

Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson v.

14

Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); see Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S.

15

740, 747 (1998); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997);

16

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

17

prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’

18

however, suit may be brought under § 1983.’”

Skinner, 131 S. Ct.

19

at 1293 (quoting Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82).

As a consequence,

20

challenges to prison conditions have traditionally been cognizable

21

only by way of § 1983, while challenges implicating the fact or

22

duration of confinement must be brought through a habeas petition.

23

Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2004).

24

Skinner v.

“Where the

Respondent argues that the Ninth Circuit has recently

25

clarified that “habeas jurisdiction and section 1983 jurisdiction

26

are in fact mutually exclusive of each other.”

27

at 3 (citing Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1151, 1157 (9th Cir.

28

2011)).

Motion to Dismiss

In Blair, the Ninth Circuit held that “a request for an
2

1

order directing a state court to hasten its consideration of an

2

appeal belongs in a § 1983 complaint, not a habeas petition”

3

because such a claim does not necessarily spell speedier release.

4

Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1151, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2011).

5

the Ninth Circuit earlier held that “when prison inmates seek only

6

equitable relief in challenging aspects of their parole review

7

that, so long as they prevail, could potentially affect the

8

duration of their confinement, such relief is available under the

9

federal habeas statute.”

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

However,

Docken, 393 F.3d at 1031 (emphasis in

original).
Although the three-judge panel in Blair relied on intervening

12

Supreme Court cases, following Blair, the Ninth Circuit has

13

reaffirmed the proposition that there are “instances where the

14

same constitutional rights might be redressed under either” a

15

habeas petition or a § 1983 complaint.

16

F.3d 834, 841 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wolff v. McDonnell, 418

17

U.S. 539, 579 (1974).

Thornton and Docken are more directly on

18

point in this context.

Moreover, other courts in this district

19

have similarly held that claims challenging parole procedures are

20

appropriately brought as habeas petitions.

21

2013 WL 3967652, *2 (N.D. Cal.) (finding that where “Petitioner

22

seeks the invalidation of state procedures used to deny parole

23

suitability,” claim “may be brought either in a petition for

24

habeas relief or in a complaint under §1983”); Herrera v. Peck,

25

2013 WL 3286188, *2 (N.D. Cal.) (dismissing a § 1983 claim and

26

instructing plaintiff he could file a habeas petition where

27

“plaintiff attacks the validity of the parole hearing and his

28

continued confinement, not the conditions of the confinement”).
3

Thornton v. Brown, 757

Nettles v. Grounds,

CONCLUSION

1
2

Respondent’s motions to dismiss the petitions for writs of

3

habeas corpus are DENIED.

4

No. 14-2993, Docket No. 11.

5

orders in each of the above captioned cases:

6

1.

Case No. 14-1936, Docket No. 14; Case
The Court hereby issues the following

Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon

7

Petitioner in each case, within twenty-eight (28) days of the

8

issuance of this Order, an answer conforming in all respects to

9

Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued.

11

shall file with the answer a copy of all portions of the relevant

12

state records that have been transcribed previously and that are

13

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

14

petition.

15

Respondent

2. If a Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall

16

do so by filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on

17

Respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the

18

answer.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated:

November 21, 2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
4