(HC) Boone v. CSP-Corcoran Warden ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMANUEL BOONE, Case No. 1:19-cv-01320-JDP 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PETITION BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. LACK OF JURISDICTION 14 CSP- CORCORAN WARDEN, ECF No. 1 15 Respondent. OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE AND 17 SEND PETITIONER A § 1983 COMPLAINT FORM 18 19 Petitioner Emanuel Boone, a state prisoner without counsel, petitioned for a writ of habeas 20 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the court for preliminary 21 review. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must examine the 22 habeas corpus petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 23 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 24 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). At this early stage, Rule 4 gives “courts 25 an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions.” Ross v. Williams, 26 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). 27 28 1 Discussion 2 Under § 2254, a writ of habeas corpus is available to prisoners challenging the fact or 3 duration of their confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). In contrast, if a 4 favorable judgment for the petitioner would not “necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier 5 release from confinement,” the court lacks jurisdiction under this provision. See Nettles v. 6 Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935-37 (9th Cir. 2016). However, “[r]equests for relief turning on 7 circumstances of confinement may be presented in a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 action.” Muhammad v. 8 Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004). 9 Here, petitioner alleges that prison personnel are beating inmates at his place of 10 confinement. See ECF No. 1 at 3. Petitioner requests a criminal investigation, criminal charges 11 against the personnel, and a temporary injunction. Id. Petitioner makes numerous other 12 allegations against prison personnel, including retaliation, sexual assault, and denial of adequate 13 medical treatment. Petitioner filed an internal prison appeal in which he disputed the prison’s 14 procedure for investigating an excessive force claim. Id. at 10-12. These claims turn on 15 conditions of confinement and will not lead to petitioner’s immediate or earlier release. 16 Therefore, petitioner has failed to state a cognizable habeas claim. 17 We next consider whether to convert the petition into a § 1983 complaint. “If the 18 complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it names the correct defendants and 19 seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so long as it warns the pro se 20 litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an opportunity for the litigant to 21 withdraw or amend his or her complaint.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (remanding case to district 22 court to consider claim under § 1983). When filing a § 1983 claim, courts require plaintiffs to 23 “plead that (1) the defendants acting under color of state law (2) deprived plaintiffs of rights 24 secured by the Constitution or federal statutes.” Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 25 (9th Cir. 1986). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, “within the meaning of 26 § 1983, ‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform 27 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” 28 Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 1 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). There is no respondeat superior liability— 2 i.e., liability of a supervisor for acts of a supervisee. Each defendant is only liable for his or her 3 own misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009). 4 We decline to convert the petition into a § 1983 complaint for two reasons. First, the 5 complaint is not amenable to conversion on its face. Petitioner’s allegations about the prison 6 conditions are too conclusory to state a § 1983 claim. Petitioner has named only the warden as 7 the respondent; petitioner has not named the people who directly committed the affirmative acts 8 or omissions that violated his rights. Second, conversion may be unfair to petitioner. The filing 9 fee for a habeas corpus petition is $5—and if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the 10 fee is forgiven. For civil rights cases, however, the filing fee is $350 plus a $50 administrative 11 fee. Under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, petitioner would be required to pay the $350 12 filing fee, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way of deductions from his trust account. 13 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). If we were to convert this action to a § 1983 action, petitioner would 14 face the larger filing and administrative fees—and with this in mind he might prefer not to file a § 15 1983 action. 16 While we decline to convert the petition, petitioner remains free to file a § 1983 17 complaint. A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 19 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 20 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Iqbal, 556 at 678. If the 21 allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the 22 complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” 23 Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what 24 plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to 25 relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) 26 (citations omitted). The complaint must state what actions each named defendant took that 27 deprived plaintiff of constitutional or other federal rights. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. 28 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 1 | Order 2 The clerk’s office is directed to send petitioner a § 1983 complaint form. The clerk of 3 | court is directed to assign this case to a district judge who will review the findings and 4 | recommendations. 5 | Findings and Recommendations 6 We recommend that the court dismiss the petition and decline to issue a certificate of 7 | appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for 8 | the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, we submit the findings and 9 | recommendations to the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the case. Within fourteen days 10 | of the service of the findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections to the 11 | findings and recommendations. That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 12 || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the 13 | findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ( Caan Dated: _ January 30, 2020 17 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 | No. 206. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28