(HC) Chaidez v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 PRECILIANO TOMAS CHAIDEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-01192-EPG-HC 9 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 10 v. HABEAS CORPUS 11 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 12 Respondent. 13 14 15 Petitioner Preciliano Tomas Chaidez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 16 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Given that the instant petition challenges 17 conditions of confinement and thus, is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus, the undersigned 18 recommends that the petition be dismissed. 19 I. 20 DISCUSSION 21 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 22 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 23 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 24 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 25 (1994). 26 A. Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction 27 By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he 1 is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 2 § 2254(a). A claim is cognizable in habeas when a prisoner challenges “the fact or duration of his 3 confinement” and “seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the shortening of its 4 duration.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). In contrast, a civil rights action 5 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of 6 confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141–42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. 7 In the instant petition, Petitioner asserts claims regarding the destruction of Petitioner’s 8 personal property when he arrived at Wasco State Prison. (ECF No. 1 at 5–6).1 Petitioner does 9 not challenge any aspect of his underlying criminal conviction or sentence or the fact or duration 10 of his confinement. The Ninth Circuit has “long held that prisoners may not challenge mere 11 conditions of confinement in habeas corpus.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 12 2016) (en banc) (citing Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891–92 (9th Cir. 1979)). As Petitioner’s 13 claims do not fall within “the core of habeas corpus,” Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487, they must be 14 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Nettles, 830 F.3d at 931. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to 15 state a cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief. 16 B. Conversion to § 1983 Civil Rights Action 17 “If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it names the correct 18 defendants and seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so long as it 19 warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an opportunity for 20 the litigant to withdraw or amend his or her complaint.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (quoting Glaus 21 v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)). The Court notes that habeas corpus and 22 prisoner civil rights actions differ in a variety of respects, such as the proper defendants, filing 23 fees, exhaustion requirements, and restrictions on future filings (e.g., the Prison Litigation 24 Reform Act’s three-strikes rule). Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (citing Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 25 839, 841 (7th Cir. 2011); Glaus, 408 F.3d at 388). 26 In addition to the instant federal habeas petition, Petitioner has also filed a § 1983 27 complaint in this Court that is proceeding in Chaidez v. California Department of Corrections & 1 | Rehabilitation, No. 1:21-cv-01189-BAM.’ Petitioner’s pending § 1983 complaint largely mirrors 2 | the instant habeas petition regarding the destruction of Petitioner’s personal property when he 3 | arrived at Wasco State Prison. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that it would be inappropriate 4 | to construe the instant federal habeas petition as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 5 | given that conversion would result in a duplicative action. 6 I. 7 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 8 Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that that the petition for writ 9 | of habeas corpus be dismissed. 10 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 11 | the present matter. 12 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 13 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 14 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 15 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 16 | written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 17 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 18 | United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 19 | U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 20 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 21 | 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED. 23| Dated: _ August 19, 2021 [see ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 |_—_SSSSSSSS 2 The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 28 | (9th Cir. 1980).