Housh v. Rackley

Filing 74

ORDER DENYING 73 REQUEST TO SUBMIT NEW EVIDENCE; GRANTING REQUEST FOR STATUS UPDATE. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 9/28/2020. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) along with two copies of a civil rights complaint form

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CARLOS C. HOUSH,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
RONALD RACKLEY,
Respondent.

Case No. 17-cv-04222-HSG
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
SUBMIT NEW EVIDENCE;
GRANTING REQUEST FOR STATUS
UPDATE
Re: Dkt. No. 73

12
13

Petitioner, a pro se prisoner, filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

14

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from Marin County Superior Court. Petitioner has filed a

15

letter with the Court, requesting a status update, asking to submit a July 8, 2020 letter from his

16

former public defender as “newly discovered evidence” that his case involved significant racial

17

issues, alleging that the prison has not allowed him access to the law library to work on this case,

18

and alleging that California Medical Facility has been turning his mail away. Id.

19
20

Petitioner’s request for a status update is GRANTED. The Court will send him a copy of
the docket sheet under separate cover.

21

Petitioner’s request to submit “newly discovered evidence” is DENIED. First, his former

22

public defender’s letter is not evidence of racial issues during his trial. Second, even if this letter

23

could constitute evidence, it may not be considered on habeas review because it was not before the

24

state court when the state court adjudicated the claims presented in the instant petition. A district

25

court may grant a petition challenging a state conviction or sentence on the basis of a claim that

26

was “adjudicated on the merits” in state court only if the state court’s adjudication of the claim:

27

“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

28

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted

1

in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

2

presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). In reviewing the reasonableness of

3

a state court’s decision to which § 2254(d)(1) applies, a district court may rely only on the record

4

that was before the state court. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 180 (2011) (holding that

5

new evidence presented at evidentiary hearing cannot be considered in assessing whether state

6

court's decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established

7

Federal law” under § 2254(d)(1)). Therefore, a federal court generally is precluded from

8

analyzing whether a state court’s adjudication resulted in a decision that unreasonably applied

9

federal law to facts not before the state court. See Pinholster, 563 U.S. at 182-83. This letter was

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

not before the state court when it adjudicated the claims presented in the instant petition.
The instant petition is fully briefed and there are no pending briefing deadlines in this

12

action. Petitioner does not require access to the law library to comply with briefing obligations in

13

this action.

14

To the extent that petitioner seeks redress for, or remedy with respect to, the denial of

15

access to the law library and his mail, these are claims that challenge his conditions of

16

confinement and must be brought in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hill v.

17

McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (challenges to lawfulness of confinement or to particulars

18

affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus; challenge to circumstances of

19

confinement may be brought under section 1983); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir.

20

2016) (section 1983 action is the exclusive remedy for claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at

21

the ‘core of habeas corpus’”) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487 (1973)). If

22

petitioner so wishes, he may raise these claims in a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

23

Clerk shall send petitioner two copies of a civil rights complaint form.

24

This order terminates Dkt. No. 73.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: 9/28/2020
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
2