From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paul v. CSATF Corcoran State Prison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 26, 2018
Case No. 1:18-cv-00783-DAD-EPG-HC (E.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 1:18-cv-00783-DAD-EPG-HC

06-26-2018

WARREN R. PAUL, Petitioner, v. CSATF CORCORAN STATE PRISON, Respondent.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Given that the instant petition challenges conditions of confinement and thus, is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus, the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed without prejudice to refiling the claims in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered to file a response, if it "plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." ///

A. Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction

By statute, federal courts "shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A claim is cognizable in habeas when a prisoner challenges "the fact or duration of his confinement" and "seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the shortening of its duration." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499.

In the instant petition, Petitioner asserts that correctional officers improperly gave Petitioner's mail to another inmate. (ECF No. 1 at 3). Petitioner also appears to contend that he needs access to his court documents and medicine. (ECF No. 1 at 5, 6). Petitioner does not challenge any aspect of his conviction or sentence or the fact or duration of his confinement. The Ninth Circuit has "long held that prisoners may not challenge mere conditions of confinement in habeas corpus." Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (citing Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979)). As Petitioner's claims do not fall within "the core of habeas corpus," Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487, they must be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nettles, 830 F.3d at 931. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief.

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

B. Conversion to § 1983 Civil Rights Action

"If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it names the correct defendants and seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so long as it warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an opportunity for the litigant to withdraw or amend his or her complaint." Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (quoting Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)). The Court notes that habeas corpus and prisoner civil rights actions differ in a variety of respects, such as the proper defendants, filing fees, exhaustion requirements, and restrictions on future filings (e.g., the Prison Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes rule). Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (citing Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 839, 841 (7th Cir. 2011); Glaus, 408 F.3d at 388).

The filing fee for § 1983 civil rights cases is $350, and Petitioner is required to pay the full amount by way of deductions from income to Petitioner's trust account, even if granted in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). --------

The undersigned finds that it would be inappropriate to construe the habeas petition as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is unclear what relief Petitioner seeks. Further, the petition names CSATF Corcoran State Prison as Respondent and thus, does not name the correct defendants. See Hubbard v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 585 F. App'x 403, 404 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding § 1983 claims against California state prisons barred by Eleventh Amendment); Krainski v. Nev. ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) ("The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State or its agencies for all types of relief, absent unequivocal consent by the state. The Eleventh Amendment jurisdictional bar applies regardless of the nature of relief sought and extends to state instrumentalities and agencies."). Additionally, the complaint would be subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and dismissal as malicious, frivolous, or failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted could count as a "strike" against Petitioner and thereby restrict Petitioner's ability to obtain in forma pauperis status in future actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice to refiling the claims in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." The assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26 , 2018

/s/_________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Paul v. CSATF Corcoran State Prison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 26, 2018
Case No. 1:18-cv-00783-DAD-EPG-HC (E.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2018)
Case details for

Paul v. CSATF Corcoran State Prison

Case Details

Full title:WARREN R. PAUL, Petitioner, v. CSATF CORCORAN STATE PRISON, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 26, 2018

Citations

Case No. 1:18-cv-00783-DAD-EPG-HC (E.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2018)