Knox v. Madden

Filing 5

ORDER denying Petitioner's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Court dismisses the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 3/5/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 WILLIE HUBERT KNOX, III, Case No. 18-cv-0353-BAS-JMA Petitioner, 13 14 15 ORDER: v. RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, (1) DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION Respondent. 16 AND 17 18 (2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 19 20 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 21 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No.1) along with an application to proceed in 22 forma pauperis (ECF No. 2.). For the reasons herein, the Court denies the motion to 23 proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses the case without prejudice. 24 25 I. REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 26 The request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because Petitioner has not 27 provided the Court with sufficient information to determine Petitioner’s financial status. 28 A request to proceed in forma pauperis made by a state prisoner must include a certificate 1 18cv353 1 from the warden or other appropriate officer showing the amount of money or securities 2 Petitioner has on account in the institution. See Rule 3(a)(2) of the Rules Governing 3 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; S.D. Civ. L. R. 3.2. Petitioner 4 has failed to provide the Court with the required prison certificate and therefore this Court 5 is unable to grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 6 7 II. FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON FEDERAL HABEAS 8 Federal habeas corpus relief may be granted “only on the ground that [the 9 petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 10 States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991). A writ 11 of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon the legality or duration of confinement. 12 Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 13 475, 484-86 (1973)). It is a proper vehicle to raise a claim which, if successful, would 14 entitle a prisoner to an immediate or speedier release from custody. By contrast, a civil 15 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for challenging conditions of 16 confinement. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 A constitutional claim concerning the application of rules administered by a prison 18 or penal administrator that challenges the duration of a sentence is a cognizable claim of 19 being in custody in violation of the Constitution under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985) (determining procedural due process 21 claim concerning loss of time credits resulting from disciplinary procedures and findings). 22 The Supreme Court has held that challenges to prison disciplinary adjudications that have 23 resulted in a loss of time credits must be raised in a federal habeas corpus action and not 24 in a § 1983 action because such a challenge is to the very fact or duration of physical 25 imprisonment, and the relief sought is a determination of entitlement of immediate or 26 speedier release. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500. Thus, such claims are within the core of 27 habeas corpus jurisdiction. Relief pursuant to § 1983 remains an appropriate remedy for 28 claims concerning administrative decisions made in prison where success would not See 2 18cv353 1 necessarily imply the invalidity of continuing confinement. See Docken v. Chase, 393 2 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2004); Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997) 3 (holding that a §1983 suit is an appropriate remedy for challenges to conditions which do 4 not necessarily imply the invalidity of continuing confinement). 5 Here, Petitioner argues his due process rights were violated when prison officials 6 restricted his visitation with his minor children. (Pet. at 6.) Because habeas corpus is 7 unavailable to challenge conditions of confinement that do not impact the legality or 8 duration of that confinement, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim. See 9 Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that federal habeas court lacks 10 jurisdiction over a challenge to the non-custodial component of a sentence); see also 11 Anderson v. Gastelo, No. CV 16-07165-FMO (DFM), 2016 WL 5869634, at *2 (C.D. 12 Cal. Oct. 4, 2016) (dismissing Petitioner’s visitation claim for lack of jurisdiction); 13 Ortega v. Gonzales, No. ED CV 10-1387-R (E), 2010 WL 5563886, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14 3, 2010); Cerniglia v. Mayberg, No. 1:06–CV–01767 OWW JMD HC, 2010 WL 15 2464852, at *6 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2010) (concluding that alleged restrictions on prison 16 visitation not cognizable on federal habeas); Vice v. Kernan, No. CIV S-06-0610 DFL 17 KJM P, 2006 WL 3716635, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2006); Rodarte v. Clarke, No. C95- 18 20766 RMW, 1996 WL 107274, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 1996) (finding a claim that 19 prison authorities refused to allow petitioner visitation with his grandchildren not 20 cognizable on federal habeas). 21 22 III. CONCLUSION & ORDER 23 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the request to 24 proceed in forma pauperis, and DISMISSES the case without prejudice for lack of 25 jurisdiction. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 DATED: March 5, 2018 3 18cv353

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?