Opinion
C22-1697 BHS
03-27-2023
TEKLEMARIAM DANIEL HAGOS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent.
ORDER
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge David W. Christel's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), Dkt. 7, and Petitioner Teklemariam Daniel Hagos's Objections to the R&R, Dkt. 8.
Hagos filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 1. His asserted grounds for habeas relief were unclear; the petition stated, for example: “they are using intel collect avoid and attacking my conscious” and “my state & federal rights are being attacked.” Dkt. 1-1 at 7. He sought dismissal of a King County case (No. 19-1-04001-3) and monetary damages of $90,000,000. Id. at 15. He also requested that the Court send a King County police officer to federal prison and administer a lie detector test to the Seattle Police Department officers who wrote his arrest report. Id.
Judge Christel granted Hagos leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 4, but declined to direct Defendant the State of Washington to file an answer, Dkt. 6. He ordered Hagos to file an amended petition by January 23, 2023, concluding that Hagos's first petition was improper. Id. at 1. Judge Christel explained that Hagos failed to name the state officer that had custody over him, specify the grounds for relief available to him, or provide the information requested on the Court's form for § 2254 petitions. Id. at 2. Judge Christel also concluded that Hagos sought monetary damages, which cannot be awarded in a habeas case. Id.
Hagos did not timely file an amended petition and Judge Christel therefore recommends the Court dismiss Hagos's § 2254 petition without prejudice and deny him a certificate of appealability. Dkt. 7. Hagos filed “objections” that appear to amount to an amended petition. Dkt. 8.
“The Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the ‘inartful pleading' of pro se litigants.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982)). The Court will therefore interpret Hagos's “objections” as an amended petition and will consider it in the first instance despite it being untimely. Judge Christel's R&R is therefore moot.
The Court should dismiss a habeas petition on preliminary review “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4.
Hagos's amended petition still fails on its face for several reasons. First, he seems to believe he is filing a personal restraint petition-a method of challenging confinement in Washington state court. Dkt. 8 at 2. To challenge the legality of confinement in a state facility in federal court, a prisoner must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Second, Hagos appears to be challenging the conditions of his confinement based on the risk of COVID-19. See generally Dkt. 8. A personal restraint petition filed in Washington state court may be used to challenge the conditions of one's confinement. Wash. R. App. P. 16.4(c)(6). In contrast, a federal habeas petition “is limited to attacks upon the legality or duration of confinement.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979). To challenge the conditions of state confinement in federal court, a prisoner must file a civil rights complaint.
The Court, having considered the R&R, Petitioner's objections, and the remaining record, does hereby order as follows:
(1) The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the R&R as moot;
(2) Hagos's Petition is DENIED;
(3) A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED; and
(4) The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.