(HC) Hatchett v. Clark ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CECIL JEROME HATCHETT, No. 2:20-cv-1544-EFB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 KEN CLARK, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 He has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. His application makes 19 the required showing and is granted. His petition, however, does not state a cognizable federal 20 habeas claim for the reasons explained below. 21 I. Legal Standards 22 The court must dismiss a habeas petition or portion thereof if the prisoner raises claims 23 that are legally “frivolous or malicious” or fail to state a basis on which habeas relief may be 24 granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The court must dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly 25 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” 26 Rule 4 Governing Section 2254 Cases. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 II. Analysis 2 The petition, as currently articulated, is difficult to comprehend. Petitioner begins by 3 alleging that prison officials at Folsom State Prison violated his due process rights and subjected 4 him to cruel and unusual punishment by improperly housing him at a “level four” institution. 5 ECF No. 1 at 4. He takes issue with his housing assignment insofar as it ultimately led to a fight 6 with another inmate and, based on that altercation, a new, indeterminate sentence of fifty-five 7 years. Id. The petition then descends into inscrutability and, over approximately thirteen pages, 8 petitioner describes various events that occurred during his prison tenure. Id. at 5-18. These 9 pages are unbroken by paragraphs or headings and it is impossible to tell which incidents might 10 represent separate claims and which are being offered merely as factual context. At bottom, it is 11 unclear whether the essence of petitioner’s claim is that he was housed incorrectly by prison 12 officials or whether the conviction that followed was itself unconstitutional. The former claim is 13 fundamentally incompatible with a federal habeas action insofar as it does not challenge the 14 validity or duration of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). The latter might potentially be 15 cognizable, but not as currently plead. 16 The court also notes that petitioner has not adequately plead exhaustion. See Cartwright 17 v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981) (petitioner bears burden of showing he has 18 exhausted state remedies). He asserts that he exhausted his claims, but has offered no details – he 19 offers only the assertion “unknown” for the date of the final state decision and the grounds raised 20 at the state level. ECF No. 1 at 2. 21 Finally, it appears that the conviction petitioner is challenging stems from 2003. Id. at 1. 22 Thus, it appears to lie well beyond the one year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 23 Petitioner may address aforementioned deficiencies in his amended petition (if he elects to 24 file one). 25 III. Conclusion 26 Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that: 27 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; and 28 ///// 2 OVE EET MMU IR eure FP Aye VM VIG 1 2. Petitioner may file an amended petition within thirty days from the date of service of 2 | this order. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 3 | DATED: September 28, 2020. tid, PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28