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)

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