William Allen Garrett v. Josie Gastello ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ) WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT, ) Case No. CV 19-8578-PA (JEM) 12 ) Petitioner, ) 13 ) ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING v. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 14 ) CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE JOSIE GASTELLO, ) OF APPEALABILITY 15 ) Respondent. ) 16 ) 17 On October 4, 2019, William Allen Garrett (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding 18 pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus ("Petition"). Petitioner claims that his 19 constitutional rights were violated in connection with a September 2019 incident that 20 resulted in his placement in administrative segregation pending the outcome of a prison 21 disciplinary hearing. (See Petition at 2, 6-7, 11-12, 14-19.)1 Petitioner claims that the 22 “cum[]ulative effect of the constitutional violations has caused [him] mental and physical 23 stress.” (Id. at 12-13.) He seeks, inter alia, money damages and to have the rules violation 24 dismissed and removed from his prisoner file. (Id. at 7, 13.) 25 As set forth below, the Petition fails to state a cognizable habeas claim and should 26 be dismissed without prejudice. 27 28 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Duty to Screen Habeas Petitions 3 This Court has a duty to screen habeas corpus petitions. See Rules Governing § 4 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes. Rule 4 5 requires a district court to examine a habeas corpus petition, and if it plainly appears from 6 the face of the petition and any annexed exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, 7 the judge shall make an order for summary dismissal of the petition. Id.; see also Local 8 Rule 72-3.2. The notes to Rule 4 state: “‘a dismissal may be called for on procedural 9 grounds, which may avoid burdening the respondent with the necessity of filing an answer 10 on the substantive merits of the petition.’” See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127-28 11 (9th Cir. 1998); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989). 12 II. The Petition Should Be Dismissed for Failure to State a Cognizable Habeas Claim 13 Petitioner challenges the issuance of a rules violation report against him and his 14 placement in administrative segregation pending the outcome of a prison disciplinary 15 hearing. (See Petition at 2, 6-7, 11-19.) Specifically, he seeks the following remedies: (1) 16 “issue a prohibitive order restrain[in]g defendant from using punishment to intimidate or 17 coerce petitioner from going through the trash, (2) to issue an order to dis[miss] or reissue 18 the 115 for battery [,] (3) return to whole and reinstate petitioner status [quo] [,] and (4) 19 award monetary damages for cum[]ulative effect of violation to petitioner[’s] constitutional 20 right to be free from discriminatory perse[cution] for a mental illness.” (Petition at 7.) He 21 also seeks to have the rules violation charge against him dismissed and removed from his 22 prisoner file. (Id. at 13.) Petitioner’s claims are not properly brought in a habeas petition 23 because he does not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. 24 A district court will entertain a habeas petition “in behalf of a person in custody 25 pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 26 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 27 “‘Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the 28 1 province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 574, 579 (2006) (quoting 2 Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam)). Habeas corpus “is the 3 exclusive remedy . . . for the prisoner who seeks ‘immediate or speedier release’ from 4 confinement.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 525 (2011) (citation omitted). A challenge 5 to the fact or duration of confinement that would, if successful, result in immediate or 6 speedier release falls within the “core” of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 7 475, 487-89 (1973). A civil rights action – not a habeas action – is the exclusive vehicle for 8 a state prisoner's claim that does not fall within this “core.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 9 922, 927-31 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). When success on a prisoner's claims “would not 10 necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement,” such claims do not 11 fall within “the core of habeas corpus[.]” Id. at 935 (citation omitted). 12 On the face of the Petition, it is clear that success on Petitioner’s claims regarding 13 the rules violation report and placement in administrative segregation would not necessarily 14 entitle him to an accelerated release from confinement. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935 15 (challenge to validity of disciplinary hearing that led to rules violation report not cognizable 16 on federal habeas review notwithstanding alleged impact on parole determination); Ramirez 17 v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent . . . 18 where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the 19 prisoner's sentence.”). Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on federal 20 habeas review. 21 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 22 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, the Court “must 23 issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 24 applicant.” 25 The Court has found that the Petition should be dismissed. For the reasons stated 26 above, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial 27 of a constitutional right, as is required to support the issuance of a certificate of 28 1 ORDER 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is dismissed without prejudice; and 3|| (2) a certificate of appealability is denied. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 vo” _ 6| DATED: October 9, 2019 ti, My LL 7 UNITED DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28