(HC) Jeys v. Price ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARTHELL DAVID JEYS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01160-JDP 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PETITION BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. LACK OF JURISDICTION 14 BRANDON PRICE, 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 Carthell David Jeys, a civil detainee without counsel, petitioned for a writ of 20 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the court for 21 preliminary review. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must 22 examine the habeas corpus petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” 23 that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 24 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). At this early stage, Rule 4 gives 25 “courts an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions.” Ross v. 26 Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). 27 28 1 Discussion 2 Petitioner presents three purported grounds for habeas relief in his petition: (1) denial of 3 proper medical care at his place of detention, (2) denial of his request to seek medical care from 4 his preferred hospital and physician1, and (3) forced participation in medical experimentation.2 5 ECF No. 1 at 5-8. 6 Under § 2254, a writ of habeas corpus is available to prisoners challenging the fact or 7 duration of their confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). In contrast, if a 8 favorable judgment for the petitioner would not “necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier 9 release from confinement,” the court lacks jurisdiction under this provision. See Nettles v. 10 Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935-37 (9th Cir. 2016). However, “requests for relief turning on 11 circumstances of confinement may be presented in a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 action.” Muhammad v. 12 Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004). Because petitioner seeks relief from the circumstances of his 13 confinement only, he has failed to state a cognizable habeas claim and we recommend that his 14 petition be dismissed. 15 We next consider whether to convert the petition into a § 1983 complaint. “If the 16 complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it names the correct defendants and 17 seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so long as it warns the pro se 18 litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an opportunity for the litigant to 19 withdraw or amend his or her complaint.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (remanding case to district 20 court to consider claim under § 1983). When filing a § 1983 claim, courts require plaintiffs to 21 “plead that (1) the defendants acting under color of state law (2) deprived plaintiffs of rights 22 secured by the Constitution or federal statutes.” Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 23 (9th Cir. 1986). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, “within the meaning of 24 § 1983, ‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform 25 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” 26 27 1 Petitioner claims that this subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 28 2 Petitioner claims that this constituted unlawful confinement and illegal treatment. 1 Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 2 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). There is no respondeat superior liability— 3 i.e., liability of a supervisor for acts of a supervisee. Each defendant is only liable for his or her 4 own misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009). 5 We decline to convert the petition into a § 1983 complaint for two reasons. First, the 6 complaint is not amenable to conversion on its face. Petitioner’s allegations about the hospital’s 7 actions are too conclusory to state a § 1983 claim, and petitioner has named only the executive 8 director of the hospital as the respondent; petitioner has not named the people who directly 9 committed the affirmative acts or omissions that violated his rights. Second, conversion may be 10 unfair to petitioner. The filing fee for a habeas petition is $5, and if leave to proceed in forma 11 pauperis is granted, the fee is forgiven. For civil rights cases, however, the filing fee is $350 plus 12 an administrative fee of $50. Under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, the prisoner is required 13 to pay the $350 filing fee, even if he is granted in forma pauperis status, by way of deductions 14 from the prisoner’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). If we were to convert this action 15 to a § 1983 action, the petitioner would face the larger filing and administrative fees—which he 16 might prefer not to do. 17 While we decline to convert the petition, we note that petitioner is free to file a § 1983 18 complaint. A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 20 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 21 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Iqbal, 556 at 678. If the 22 allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the 23 complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” 24 Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what 25 plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to 26 relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) 27 (citations omitted). The complaint must state what actions each named defendant took that 28 1 | deprived plaintiff of constitutional or other federal rights. See Igbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. 2 | Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 3 | Order 4 The clerk’s office is directed to send petitioner a § 1983 complaint form. The clerk of 5 | court is directed to assign this case to a district judge who will review the findings and 6 || recommendations. 7 | Findings and Recommendations 8 We recommend that the court dismiss the petition and decline to issue a certificate of 9 | appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for 10 | the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, we submit the findings and 11 | recommendations to the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the case. Within fourteen days 12 | of the service of the findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections to the 13 | findings and recommendations. That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 14 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the 15 | findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ( Caan Dated: _ February 9, 2020 19 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 | No. 206. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28