Smith v. Frauenheim

Filing 2

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 6/1/16. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

DANIEL A. SMITH,
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No. C 16-2287 JSW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

13
14
15

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,
Respondent.

16

Petitioner, a California prisoner at Pleasant Valley State Prison, filed this pro se
17

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee.
18

Petitioner claims that the conditions of his prison violate the Eighth Amendment
19

because of overcrowding. He contends that the overcrowding violates an order issued in
20

the class action Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No. C 01-01351 TEH (N.D. Cal. filed 2001). He
21

seeks immediate release from prison.
22

In Plata, a three-judge court ordered the State of California to reduce the prison
23

population to 137.5% of the prisons’ design capacity within two years, which, absent
24

compliance through other means, would require releasing some prisoners before their full
25

sentences have been served. See Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1928 (2011). The State
26

appealed the order of the three-judge court and the Supreme Court affirmed the remedial
27

order, directing the State to implement the order “without further delay.” Id. at 1947.
28

1

Pet
titioner alle
eges that the deadline set in Plata to reduce t prison p
e
s
the
population h passed
has

2

wit
thout comp
pliance, and as a result he should b released from prison
d
be
n.

3

An ind
dividual suit for injunct and equ
t
tive
uitable relie from alle
ef
egedly unco
onstitutional
l

4

pri
ison conditi
ions may be dismissed when it du
e
d
uplicates an existing class action's allegations
s
s

5

and prayer for relief. See Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013).
d
r
e
C
9

6

"In
ndividual members of the class an other pris
m
t
nd
soners may assert any equitable o
y
or

7

dec
claratory claims they have, but th must do so by urgin further a
h
hey
ng
actions through the

8

cla represen
ass
ntative and attorney, in
a
ncluding con
ntempt proc
ceedings, or by interve
r
ention in the
e

9

cla action." Gillespie v. Crawford 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th Cir. 1
ass
v
d,
3
1988) (en banc)).
Pet
titioner must seek to en
nforce the Plata order through th class repr
P
r
he
resentative or attorney

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

in the Plata ca not in an individual action fo habeas re
ase,
a
or
elief.

12

ion
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Gove
R
erning Secti 2254 C
Cases require a district court to
es
t

13

rul on wheth a Petition is entitl to a cert
le
her
ner
led
tificate of ap
appealability in the sam order in
y
me

14

wh the peti
hich
ition is deci
ided. No re
easonable ju
urist would find this C
d
Court's dism
missal of his

15

pet
tition debat
table or wro
ong. See Sla v. McD
ack
Daniel, 529 U.S. 473, 4 (2000).
484

16

Co
onsequently no certific of appe
y,
cate
ealability is warranted in this case
e.

17

The Cl
lerk shall cl
lose the file and enter j
e
judgment.

18

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.

19

Da
ated: June 1, 2016

20
21

JE
EFFREY S. WHITE
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2