(PC) Poindexter v. Lynch ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE POINDEXTER, No. 2:21-CV-0887-JAM-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. LYNCH, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition for 19 a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1. 20 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary 21 dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits 22 annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the instant case, it 23 is plain that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. 24 This action was initiated on a form habeas corpus petition. See ECF No. 1. 25 Section 12 of the form petition, wherein Petitioner is asked to state his grounds for relief and 26 supporting facts, is blank. See id. at 4-5. Instead, Petitioner attaches additional pages to his filing 27 setting forth his claims. See id. at 8-14. In the attached pages, Petitioner states that his action is 28 filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id. at 8. Petitioner sets forth facts alleging he was subjected to 1 excessive force while incarcerated at California State Prison – Sacramento. See id. at 8-14. 2 When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody – either the fact of 3 confinement or the duration of confinement – and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is 4 entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is cognizable in a petition for a writ 5 of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); 6 see also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 7 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Where a prisoner challenges the conditions of 8 confinement, as opposed to the fact or duration of confinement, his remedy lies in a civil rights 9 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1985); see 10 also Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 1298-99 n.13 (2011) (stating that “. . .when a prisoner’s 11 claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ that claim does not lie at ‘the core of habeas 12 corpus’ and may be brought, if at all, under § 1983"). Any claim that does not necessarily 13 shorten an inmate’s incarceration, if successful, falls outside the scope of habeas jurisdiction. 14 See Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1151, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Nettles v. Grounds, 788 15 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing loss of good-time credits). Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 16 2254 cannot be used to challenge the conditions of confinement, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be 17 used to challenge the fact or duration of confinement. 18 When a habeas corpus action is filed which states claims cognizable under § 1983, 19 the district court may recharacterize the action as a civil rights action where the action is 20 amenable to such recharacterization. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 936 (9th Cir. 2016) 21 (en banc). A habeas action is amendable to recharacterization when it names the correct 22 defendants and seeks the correct relief. See id. If the district court is inclined to recharacterize a 23 habeas action as a civil rights action, it may only do so after “notifying and obtaining informed 24 consent from the prisoner.” Id. 25 Petitioner’s action cannot proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because he challenges 26 the conditions of his confinement and not the fact or duration of confinement. By these findings 27 and recommendations, the Court notifies Petitioner of its willingness to recharacterize Petitioner’s 28 action as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Petitioner has named the correct 1 | defendants and seeks the proper relief for such an action. If, in response to these findings and 2 || recommendations, Petitioner informs the Court of his consent to recharacterization of the action, 3 | the Court will vacate the findings and recommendations and direct that the matter proceed under 4 | 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If Petitioner does not do so within the time provided, the matter will be 5 | presented to the assigned District Judge for dismissal as a habeas action. 6 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner’s petition for 7 | a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be summarily dismissed unless Petitioner consents to 8 | recharacterization within the time provided below. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 10 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 | objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 13 | objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 14 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 | Dated: August 9, 2021 Ssvcqo_ M7 DENNIS M. COTA 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28