Chatman v. Madden

Filing 3

ORDER: (1) Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; (2) Dismissing Petition for Failure to Pay the Filing Fee [Doc. Nos. 1 , 2 ]. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 2/28/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CHARLES CHATMAN,
Petitioner,

13
14
15

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00441-H-MDD
ORDER:

v.
(1) DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS;

RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden,
Respondent.

16
17

(2) DISMISSING PETITION FOR
FAILURE TO PAY THE
FILING FEE

18
19

[Doc. Nos. 1, 2.]

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

On February 26, 2018, Petitioner Charles Chatman filed what purports to be a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) Chatman
is a California inmate incarcerated at Centinela State Prison. The petition alleges that
prison medical staff violated Chatman’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment right to
adequate medical care by improperly confiscating his orthopedic shoes and insoles. (Id.)
Chatman has moved to proceed in forma pauperis in lieu of paying the filing fee. (Doc.
No. 2.)

28
1
3:18-cv-00441-H-MDD

1

Chatman’s petition and IFP motion are deficient in several respects.

First,

2

Chatman’s claims are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition. In Nettles v. Grounds,

3

the Ninth Circuit held “that a § 1983 action is the exclusive vehicle for claims brought by

4

state prisoners that are not within the core of habeas corpus.” 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir.

5

2016) (en banc). A claim is not within the core of habeas corpus if success on the merits

6

“would not necessarily lead to [the prisoner’s] immediate or earlier release from

7

confinement.” Id. at 935. Chatman’s petition seeks only access to medical care, (Doc. No.

8

1), and therefore falls outside of the core of habeas corpus and must be brought pursuant

9

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

10

The Ninth Circuit has held “that a district court may construe a petition for habeas

11

corpus to plead a cause of action under § 1983 after notifying and obtaining informed

12

consent from the prisoner.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936. However, this saving construction

13

is only available if “the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it

14

names the correct defendants and seeks the correct relief . . . .” Id. (quoting Glaus v.

15

Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)). Chatman has not sued the correct defendant;

16

his petition alleges that Dr. S. Ho denied him adequate medical care, but he has instead

17

sued Warden Raymond Madden, who was not involved with his treatment. (Doc. No. 1.)

18

The Court therefore declines to convert the petition into a § 1983 complaint.

19

Furthermore, the Court will not permit Chatman to proceed in forma pauperis.

20

Chatman’s IFP application does not include a certified copy of his prison trust account

21

statement showing transactions for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing

22

of the petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The Court is therefore unable to

23

determine whether Chatman is actually incapable of paying the filing fee.

24

Moreover, a review of Chatman’s past litigation history shows that he is a serial

25

litigant who has had three or more actions dismissed for failure to a state a claim upon

26

which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (“In no event shall a prisoner bring

27

a civil action . . . proceeding [IFP] if the prisoner has on 3 or more prior occasions . . .

28

brought an action . . . that was dismissed on the grounds that it . . . fails to state a claim
2
3:18-cv-00441-H-MDD

1

upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious

2

physical injury.”) In Chatman v. Frazier, the Eastern District of California revoked

3

Chatman’s IFP status after determining that he had filed three actions that were dismissed

4

for failure to state a claim. No. 2:13-cv-1605 KJM KJN P, 2016 WL 1267834, at *1 (E.D.

5

Cal. March 31, 2016). The Court has reviewed the actions cited in the Frazier order—

6

Chatman v. Adams, Case No. 1:07-cv-0902 AWI SMS, 2008 WL 1774111, at *2 (E.D.

7

Cal. Apr. 16, 2008), aff’d 409 F. App’x 151 (9th Cir. 2011) (mem.), Chatman v. County of

8

San Mateo, Case No. 3:08-cv-0050 MMC, 2008 WL 4067422, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28,

9

2008), aff’d 357 F. App’x 874 (9th Cir. 2009), and Chatman v. Horsley, Case No. 3:00-cv-

10

01807 MMC (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2000)—and determines that each of those actions are

11

properly counted as strikes within the meaning of § 1915(g). Chatman v. Adams and

12

Chatman v. County of San Mateo were dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, and

13

thus count as strikes pursuant to Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015).

14

And Chatman v. Horsley was dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim pursuant to

15

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Chatman is therefore ineligible for IFP status unless he can demonstrate

16

that he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

17

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Chatman’s petition for failing to present a

18

cognizable habeas claim and for failure to pay the filing fee. If Chatman wishes to re-assert

19

his claims, he must bring them pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and pay the $400 filing fee

20

applicable to such claims.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 28, 2018
MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

25
26
27
28
3
3:18-cv-00441-H-MDD