(HC) Harper v. CDCR ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL HARPER, No. 2:20-cv-01119 GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CDCR, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding in pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis. 20 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 21 the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 23 Petitioner is currently confined in California Medical Facility. In his habeas petition, for 24 the nature of offense petitioner seeks to contest, petitioner states, “to get the inmates to get 25 punished for the sexual crimes these inmates do to the female staff at the prisons in California and 26 not get punished for it.” ECF No. 1 at 1. The petition also includes federal regulations, secondary 27 sources, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s policies on sex 28 crimes. 1 A federal court may not entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought by a person 2 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court unless the petition has been brought “on the 3 ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 4 States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Federal habeas corpus relief is available only for challenges to the 5 duration or legality of a prisoner’s confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 6 It is apparent from the petition, that petitioner does not seek to challenge the duration or legality 7 of his confinement. Instead, petitioner appears to seek relief for female prison staff in California 8 prisons whom petitioner alleges are subjected to sex crimes by prison inmates. However, a writ of 9 habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle for such relief. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 10 Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition 11 “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the 12 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. Accordingly, this petition should be 13 dismissed for failure to state a cognizable federal claim. 14 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court must 15 issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A 16 certificate of appealability may issue only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 17 denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For the reasons set forth in these 18 findings and recommendations, a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right has 19 not been made in this case. 20 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; and 22 2. The Clerk of the Court shall assign this case to a district judge. 23 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 24 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be summarily DISMISSED for 25 failure to state a claim; and 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 2. This court decline to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2 2253. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 6 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 7 Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 8 the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991). 9 Dated: June 19, 2020 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 2:20-cv-01119

Filed Date: 6/19/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/19/2024