Guzman v. Jacquez

Filing 12

ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT; RE-OPENING CASE; ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 4/3/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
SAMUEL S. GUZMAN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

10
Petitioner,
11
v.
12
WARDEN FRANCISCO JACQUEZ,
13
Respondent.
14

No. C 12-5341 LHK (PR)
ORDER VACATING
JUDGMENT; RE-OPENING
CASE; ORDER OF DISMISSAL

15
On October 16, 2012, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a writ of habeas
16
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his gang validation and resulting indeterminate
17
term in the Secured Housing Unit (“SHU”). That same day, the Court directed Petitioner to file
18
either a completed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the $ 5.00 filing fee.
19
On November 30, 3012, after having heard nothing from Petitioner, the Court ordered the case
20
dismissed without prejudice. On December 12, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion to re-open,
21
alleging that he never received the Clerk’s Notice with further instructions. On January 3, 2013,
22
the Court ordered Petitioner again to file either a completed motion for leave to proceed in forma
23
pauperis, or pay the $5.00 filing fee. On February 15, 2013, Petitioner paid the $ 5.00 filing fee.
24
Accordingly, the Court vacates the judgment, and re-opens this action. However, for the reasons
25
that follow, the Court dismisses the case.
26
BACKGROUND
27
Petitioner challenges the 2010 decision to validate him as an associate of the Mexican
28
Order Vacating Judgment; Re-Opening Case; Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.12\Guzman341reodis.wpd

1

Mafia prison gang, and place him in the SHU for an indeterminate term. On December 15, 2011,

2

the Superior Court for the County of Del Norte denied Petitioner’s state habeas petition. On

3

January 27, 2012, the California Court of Appeal denied Petitioner’s state habeas petition. On

4

September 26, 2012, the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s state habeas petition. The

5

instant federal petition was filed on October 16, 2012.

6
7

DISCUSSION
A.

8
9

Standard of Review
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

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

10

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose

11

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).

12

A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

13

cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the

14

applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

15

B.

16

Petitioner’s Claims
Petitioner alleges that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to validate him as a gang

17

associate; (2) prison officials have a policy of placing inmates in the SHU based only on

18

allegations rather than misconduct; and (3) the regulations concerning gang validation are vague

19

and overbroad, and violate his right to free speech. Petitioner seeks expungement of the gang

20

validation, release from the SHU, reversal of the policy of placing inmates in the SHU based on

21

“mere gang affiliation,” and a promulgation of clear regulations regarding the definition of “gang

22

activity.”

23

Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus. “‘Federal law opens two

24

main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28

25

U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as

26

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars

27

affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573,

28

579 (2006) (quotation and citation omitted). “An inmate’s challenge to the circumstances of his
Order Vacating Judgment; Re-Opening Case; Order of Dismissal
2
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.12\Guzman341reodis.wpd

1

confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.” Id.

2

Where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the

3

prisoner’s sentence, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is proper and habeas jurisdiction

4

is absent. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, the preferred

5

practice in the Ninth Circuit has been that challenges to conditions of confinement be brought in

6

a civil rights complaint. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action

7

proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-

8

92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition because challenges to terms and

9

conditions of confinement must be brought as civil rights complaint).

10

In this action, Petitioner challenges prison officials’ decision to validate him as a gang

11

affiliate and place him in the SHU. The petition does not attempt to challenge either the fact of

12

his conviction or the length of his sentence. Rather, it goes entirely to the conditions of his

13

confinement, and success in this action would not result in his release from prison nor shorten

14

his stay in prison. Petitioner’s claims must be pursued in a civil rights action.

15

Although a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the

16

conditions of his confinement as pleading civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

17

Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the Court declines to do so here. The

18

difficulty with construing a habeas petition as a civil rights complaint is that the two forms used

19

by most prisoners request different information and much of the information necessary for a civil

20

rights complaint is not included in the habeas petition filed here. Examples of the potential

21

problems created by using the habeas petition form rather than the civil rights complaint form

22

include the potential omission of intended defendants, potential failure to link each defendant to

23

the claims, and potential absence of an adequate prayer for relief. Additionally, there is doubt

24

whether the prisoner is willing to pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee rather than the $5.00

25

habeas filing fee to pursue his claims. The habeas versus civil rights distinction is not just a

26

matter of using different pleading forms. A habeas action differs in many ways from a civil

27

rights action: (1) a habeas petitioner has no right to a jury trial on his claims, (2) the Court may

28

be able to make credibility determinations based on the written submissions of the parties in a
Order Vacating Judgment; Re-Opening Case; Order of Dismissal
3
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.12\Guzman341reodis.wpd

1

habeas action, (3) state court (rather than administrative) remedies must be exhausted for the

2

claims in a habeas action, (4) the proper respondent in a habeas action is the warden in charge of

3

the prison, but he or she might not be able to provide the desired relief when the prisoner is

4

complaining about a condition of confinement, and (5) damages cannot be awarded in a habeas

5

action. It is not in the interest of judicial economy to allow prisoners to file civil rights actions

6

on habeas forms because virtually every such case, including this one, would be defective at the

7

outset and require additional Court resources to deal with the problems created by the different

8

filing fees and the absence of information on the habeas form. For these reasons, Petitioner

9

might not seek to have the instant action treated as a § 1983 case.

10

CONCLUSION

11

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to

12

Petitioner filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 preferably using the Court’s civil

13

rights complaint form, attached to this order.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

4/3/13
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Vacating Judgment; Re-Opening Case; Order of Dismissal
4
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.12\Guzman341reodis.wpd