Rodriguez v. Sheriff Kelley Martinez et al

Filing 28

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation (ECF Nos. 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ). Signed by District Judge James E. Simmons, Jr on 1/6/2025. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(maq)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PEDRO RODRIGUEZ,

Case No.: 3:23-cv-02024-JES-KSC
Petitioner,

12
13

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

14

SHERIFF KELLEY MARTINEZ and
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,

[ECF Nos. 12, 18, 19, 20, 21]

15
16

Respondents.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) in this case on August 26, 2024. ECF No. 21. Judge Crawford
recommended that this Court deny Petitioner’s Ex Parte Claim of Retaliation and Motion
to Strike, ECF Nos. 19, 20, and grant Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 12.1

25
26
27
28

1

Petitioner also requested judicial notice of an informal response filed by the Attorney General of
California in an unrelated state court habeas proceeding, ECF No. 18, which Judge Crawford granted,
ECF No. 21 at 2. Petitioner attached the informal response to his objections. ECF No. 26 at 9-27.
1
3:23-cv-02024-JES-KSC

1

Petitioner timely filed objections to the R&R. ECF No. 26. This matter is now before the

2

Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

3

A district court judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

4

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If any party

5

files objections to a magistrate judge's proposed report and recommendations, “the court

6

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report.” Id. No standard of

7

review is prescribed for the portions of the report for which no objections are filed, and no

8

review is required in the absence of objections. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152-54

9

(1985). A district court judge is not, however, precluded from sua sponte review of other

10

portions of the report, under a de novo standard or otherwise. Id. at 154. The Advisory

11

Committee notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) recommend that, when no

12

objection is filed, the recommendations be reviewed for “clear error on the face of the

13

record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment.

14

Petitioner, without addressing the findings or legal analyses, generally objects to

15

each of Judge Crawford’s findings in the R&R. See ECF No. 26. The Court addresses each

16

objection in turn.

17

First, Petitioner objects to Judge Crawford’s recommendation that his Ex Parte

18

Claim for Retaliation (“Ex Parte”) 2 should be denied. Id. at 2-4. Petitioner alleges

19

interference with his legal mail and work product, which he attributes to retaliation for

20

engaging in various forms of protected activity. See ECF No. 19. The withholding of his

21

mail, Petitioner alleges, impedes his ability to litigate various legal actions. Id. These

22

claims, however, challenge the conditions of Petitioner’s present confinement, not the

23

validity of judgment against him. “Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to

24

particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus; requests for relief

25
26
27
28

2

Judge Crawford construed Petitioner’s Ex Parte as a request for filing a supplemental or amended
pleading pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. ECF No. 21 at 5.
2
3:23-cv-02024-JES-KSC

1

turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.” Muhammad

2

v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (internal citation omitted). Habeas corpus and civil

3

rights are mutually exclusive remedies. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d. 922, 927 (9th Cir.

4

2016) (en banc). A Section 1983 action is the “exclusive vehicle for claims brought by

5

state prisoners that are not within the core of habeas corpus” and, consequently, “habeas is

6

available only for state prisoner claims that lie at the core of habeas.” Id. at 927, 930. A

7

claim lies within the core of habeas only if success would “necessarily lead to immediate

8

or speedier release.” Id. at 934. Thus, to be cognizable in habeas, a claim must necessarily

9

accelerate release from confinement if the claim were to succeed. See id. at 934-35.

10

Here, the success of Petitioner’s interference claims has no effect on his release from

11

custody. Thus, because Petitioner’s claims relate to the conditions of his present

12

confinement, and not the constitutionality of the judgment against him, he may not bring

13

these claims in a habeas action. If Petitioner wishes to pursue these claims, he may do so

14

in a separate action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983.

15

Petitioner next objects to Judge Crawford’s recommendation that Respondents’

16

motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12, should be granted and that his Amended Petition for Writ

17

of Habeas Corpus (“Amended Petition”), ECF No. 8, should be dismissed without leave to

18

amend. ECF No. 26 at 4. In this general objection, Petitioner reiterates his interference

19

claims alleged in the Ex Parte. See ECF No. 26 at 4 (“Petitioner objects to [the]

20

characterization [that] it is the prisoner Plaintiff withholding documentation and not the

21

sheriffs…”). Nonetheless, the Court agrees with Judge Crawford’s assessment that the

22

Amended Petition should be dismissed in full without leave to amend. In the Amended

23

Petition, Petitioner alleges that he lost 20 days of custody credits because of

24

unconstitutional disciplinary proceedings that (a) lacked due process in violation of the

25

Fourteenth Amendment and/or (b) amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation

26

of the Eighth Amendment. ECF No. 8-1 at 4. As outlined in the R&R, the record establishes

27

that none of these disciplinary proceedings imposed consequences having any effect on the

28
3
3:23-cv-02024-JES-KSC

1

duration of Petitioner’s confinement. See ECF No. 21 at 3-4. Consequently, Petitioner fails

2

to state a cognizable habeas claim, and thus his Amended Petition must be dismissed. 3

3

CONCLUSION

4

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS Judge Crawford’s Report and

5

Recommendation, ECF No. 21, in full. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Ex

6

Parte Claim for Retaliation, ECF No. 19, and DENIES his Motion to Strike, ECF No. 20.

7

The Court GRANTS Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 12, and DISMISSES the

8

Amended Petition without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2025

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

3

Petitioner also generally objects to Judge Crawford’s recommendation to deny his Motion to Strike, ECF
No. 20, as moot, or alternatively, on the merits. ECF No. 26 at 5. In this motion, Petitioner moves to strike
the declaration of sergeant Luis Gomez, alleging that it is false and therefore constitutes fraud. ECF No.
20. Upon review of the record, the R&R, and Petitioner’s objections, the Court finds that the motion fails
to establish that the declaration is false, and instead, only offers mere speculation of fraud.

28
4
3:23-cv-02024-JES-KSC