(HC) Trammell v. State of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICOLAS TRAMMELL, No. 1:21-cv-00126-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO SUMMARILY DISMISS PETITION 15 Respondent. [TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 16 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He filed the instant petition on September 20 28, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Because 21 venue is proper in the Eastern District, the action was transferred to this Court on January 27, 22 2021. Upon review of the petition, the Court finds that it presents only civil rights complaints; 23 therefore, the Court will recommend it be DISMISSED. 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 26 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 27 petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 28 entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 1 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 2 habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 3 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 4 2001). 5 B. Civil Rights Claims 6 Petitioner seeks dismissal of his conviction; however, he does not challenge the conviction 7 itself. Rather, he seeks dismissal “due to multiple civil right violations.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) He 8 complains that prison guards are “telling inmates to fight [him]” and “yell[ing] verbal sexual slurs 9 at [him].” (Doc. 1 at 3-4.) In addition to dismissal of his conviction, he seeks damages for 10 “fear,” “mental anguish,” and “defamation of character,” in the amount of twenty thousand 11 dollars for each violation of his civil rights. (Doc. 1 at 4.) 12 A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or 13 duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser 14 v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)). In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 15 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of confinement. McCarthy v. 16 Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. Petitioner’s civil rights claims 17 are not cognizable in a federal habeas action and must be dismissed. Petitioner must seek relief 18 for his complaints by way of a civil rights action. 19 In Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 936 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that a 20 district court has the discretion to construe a habeas petition as a civil rights action under § 1983. 21 However, recharacterization is appropriate only if it is “amenable to conversion on its face, 22 meaning that it names the correct defendants and seeks the correct relief,” and only after the 23 petitioner is warned of the consequences of conversion and is provided an opportunity to 24 withdraw or amend the petition. Id. Here, the Court does not find recharacterization to be 25 appropriate. Petitioner does not name the proper defendants and the claims are not amenable to 26 conversion on their face. Accordingly, the Court should not exercise its discretion to 27 recharacterize the action. 28 Therefore, the Court will recommend that the action be dismissed and the Clerk of Court 1 be directed to send Petitioner a blank civil rights complaint. 2 ORDER 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District 4 Judge to the case. RECOMMENDATION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus 6 petition be DISMISSED and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to provide Petitioner with a blank 7 civil rights complaint form. 8 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 9 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 10 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 11 Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections 12 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 13 and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 15 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Sheila K. Oberto Dated: February 2, 2021 /s/ . 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28