Soun v. Warden

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 12/6/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BONSET SOUN,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-05600-HSG (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,
Respondent.

12
13
14

INTRODUCTION
Bonset Soun, a prisoner housed at California State Prison-Solano, has filed this pro se

15

action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing

16

fee. For the reasons stated below, the petition is DISMISSED.

17

DISCUSSION

18

According to the petition, in 1992 or 1993, in Santa Clara County Superior Court,

19

petitioner was convicted of first degree murder in the attempted commission of a robbery and two

20

other felonies. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He was one

21

month past his 18th birthday when the crimes were committed. Petitioner claims herein that he is

22

being denied the benefit of California’s Senate Bills 9, 260, and 261.

23

Senate Bill 9 became law in January 2013 and authorizes a prisoner who was under 18

24

years of age at the time of committing an offense for which the prisoner was sentenced to life

25

without parole to submit a petition for recall and resentencing to the sentencing court after serving

26

at least 15 years of their sentence. See Cal. Penal Code § 1170(d)(2). Senate Bill 260 became law

27

in January 2014 and established a parole eligibility mechanism for juvenile offenders with life

28

sentences with the possibility of parole. Senate Bill 260 applied to youth offenders who were

1

under 18 years of age at the time of the controlling offense, but Senate Bill 261, which became law

2

in January 2016, extended eligibility to youth offenders under 23 years of age. See Cal Penal

3

Code § 3051. For example, a person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was

4

committed before the person had attained 23 years of age and for which the sentence is an

5

indeterminate term of 25 years to life shall be eligible for release on parole during his or her 25th

6

year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing. See Cal Penal Code § 3051(b)(3).

7

Petitioner claims that Senate Bill 261 violates the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause

8

and Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause by denying him a youth offender

9

parole hearing based on his prison term of life without the possibility of parole, while providing
hearings to youth offenders who are serving indeterminate prison terms of life with the possibility

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of parole.

12

This Court lacks habeas corpus jurisdiction because a favorable judgment would not

13

“necessarily lead to [petitioner’s] immediate or earlier release from confinement.” Nettles v.

14

Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 645 (2017). Nettles

15

held that a prisoner’s claim which, if successful, will not necessarily lead to immediate or speedier

16

release from custody falls outside the “core of habeas corpus” and must be pursued (if at all) in a

17

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than in a habeas action. Nettles, 830 F.3d at

18

927-28. Nettles makes it clear that federal habeas relief is not available under the circumstances

19

present in petitioner’s case. A favorable judgment for petitioner would not necessarily mean

20

immediate release from confinement or a shorter stay in prison. At most, success would entitle

21

petitioner to a parole hearing, at which the parole board may, in its discretion, decline to shorten

22

his prison term.

23

In an appropriate case a habeas petition may be construed as a Section 1983 complaint.

24

Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). Although the Court may construe a habeas

25

petition as a civil rights action, it is not required to do so. Since the time when the Wilwording

26

case was decided there have been significant changes in the law. For instance, the filing fee for a

27

habeas petition is five dollars; for civil rights cases, however, the fee is now $400 ($350 if in

28

forma pauperis status is granted) and under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act the prisoner is
2

1

required to pay it, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way of deductions from income to

2

the prisoner’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Also, a civil rights complaint which is

3

dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim would count as a “strike” under 28

4

U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is not true for habeas cases. Finally, petitioner is advised that his efforts

5

to exhaust state court remedies may preclude him from litigating the same claims in a civil rights

6

action because state habeas proceedings can have issue or claim preclusive effects on later § 1983

7

actions. See Silverton v. Dep’t of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1347 (9th Cir. 1981) (state habeas

8

proceeding precludes identical issue from being relitigated in subsequent § 1983 action if state

9

habeas court afforded full and fair opportunity for issue to be heard); Gonzalez v. California Dep’t
of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226, 1230-31 (9th Cir. 2014) (extending rule of Silverton to cover claim

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

preclusion as well as issue preclusion).

12

CONCLUSION

13

1. The petition is DISMISSED for the reasons set out above. Dismissal is without

14

prejudice to filing a federal civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Eastern

15

District of California, where petitioner is incarcerated.

16

2. Because reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of

17

appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)

18

(standard for COA).

19

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. The Clerk is further directed to list Eric

20

Arnold, Warden of California State Prison-Solano, as the respondent, in accordance with Habeas

21

Rule 2(a).

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/6/2017

24
25
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

26
27
28
3