Bluehorse v. Washoe County Sheriff et al

Filing 4

ORDER This action is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable habeas corpus claim. Motion to withdraw or dismiss 3 is granted. Motion to proceed IFP 1 is denied. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/10/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1

\

2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

AKENATEN BLUEHORSE,

9
10
11
12

Case No. 3:14-cv-00489-MMD-VPC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
WAHSOE COUNTY SHERRIF, et al.,
Respondents.

13

This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28

14

U.S.C. § 2254 by a former inmate. This Court has conducted a preliminary review of the

15

petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

16

States District Courts. The Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the

17

petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district

18

court.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v.

19

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990).

20

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner

21

can show that “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . .”

28 U.S.C.

22

§ 2254(a). “According to traditional interpretation, the writ of habeas corpus is limited to

23

attacks upon the legality or duration of confinement.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890,

24

891 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-86 (1973)). The

25

instant petition does not attack the legality or duration of petitioner’s confinement.

26

Rather, the petition challenges petitioner’s conditions of confinement while incarcerated

27

at the Washoe County Detention Facility. Thus, his claims are not appropriate for

28

habeas corpus relief. Challenges to the conditions of confinement are more

1

appropriately raised in a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See

2

Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d at 891-92.

3

In the motion to withdraw and/or dismiss petition for habeas corpus and motion to

4

proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 3), petitioner indicates his understanding that

5

allegations challenging conditions of confinement should be raised in a civil rights action

6

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than a habeas petition. Petitioner’s motion to

7

withdraw and/or dismiss the habeas petition and in forma pauperis application is

8

granted.

9

District courts are required to rule on the certificate of appealability in the order

10

disposing of a proceeding adversely to the petitioner or movant, rather than waiting for a

11

notice of appeal and request for certificate of appealability to be filed. Rule 11(a). In

12

order to proceed with any appeal, petitioner must receive a certificate of appealability.

13

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22; 9 th Cir. R. 22-1; Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d

14

946, 950-951 (9th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Mikels, 236 F.3d 550, 551-52

15

(9th Cir. 2001). Generally, a petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of

16

a constitutional right” to warrant a certificate of appealability. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);

17

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). “The petitioner must demonstrate that

18

reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims

19

debatable or wrong.” Id. (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484). In order to meet this threshold

20

inquiry, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that the issues are debatable

21

among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues differently; or that the

22

questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Id. In this case,

23

no reasonable jurist would find this Court’s dismissal of the petition debatable or wrong.

24

The Court therefore denies petitioner a certificate of appealability.

25

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable

26

habeas corpus claim. The dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner raising his claims

27

in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed in a new case.

28

///
2

1
2
3
4

It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion to withdraw or dismiss the petition
and motion to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 3) is granted.
It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no.
1) is denied.

5

It is further ordered that petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability.

6

It is further ordered that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

7

DATED THIS 10th day of October 2014.

8
9
10
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3