(HC) Juarez v. Eastern District of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN MANUEL JUAREZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-01277-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, DISMISS PETITION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM1 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 1) 16 FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 17 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO PROVIDE 18 PETITIONER WITH § 1983 COMPLAINT FORM 19 20 21 Petitioner Juan Manuel Juarez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action by 22 filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on August 23, 2021. (Doc. No. 23 1, Petition). Although submitted on a habeas corpus form, Petitioner’s claims are properly 24 pursued via a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The undersigned recommends that 25 the Petition be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim and Petitioner be permitted to 26 pursue his claim in a new action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Cal. 2019). 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner is a state prisoner serving 24 years to life for his 2010 conviction for second 3 degree murder and attempted murder. (Doc. No. 1 at 2). In his Petition, Petitioner names the 4 “Eastern District of California” as the Respondent. (Id. at 1). In the section of the habeas form 5 inquiring what the “petition concerns,” Petitioner checks “jail or prison conditions” and “other.” 6 (Id). In his first ground for relief, Petitioner complains that prison staff are denying him access to 7 ceremonial wine, so that he might observe his religion. (Id. at 3). In his second ground for relief, 8 Plaintiff complains that the state court’s finding that he did not exhaust his administrative 9 remedies regarding his claim concerning the denial of wine is incorrect. (Id. at 4). The Petition 10 does not identify what relief, if any, Petitioner seeks. (See generally Doc. No.1). 11 II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 12 A. The Claims Do Not Spell Earlier Release 13 This matter is before the Court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules 14 Governing Section 2254 Cases. See R. Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 1(b); 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2243. Under Rule 4, the Court must dismiss a habeas petition if it “plainly appears” that the 16 petitioner is not entitled to relief. Under § 2254, a writ of habeas corpus is available to prisoners 17 who seek to challenge the fact or duration of their confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 18 477, 481 (1994). If a favorable judgment for the petitioner would not “necessarily lead to his 19 immediate or earlier release from confinement,” the claim is not cognizable on federal habeas 20 review. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935-37 (9th Cir. 2016). Contrarily, “requests for 21 relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 action.” 22 Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004). 23 Petitioner’s claims stem from the denial by prison staff of ceremonial wine that Petitioner 24 states is necessary for his religious tenets and the state court’s denial of his claim on the basis that 25 he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (See generally Doc. No. 1). Petitioner’s claim 26 against prison officials implicates the First Amendment freedom of religion clause.2 Thus, the 27 2 A prisoner is required under the PLRA to fully exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his claim 28 (which petitioner claims he did). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e). Generally, outside of the prison’s 1 success of the claim would not lead to Petitioner’s earlier release. Accordingly, the undersigned 2 finds that Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable habeas claim. Instead, Petitioner’s claim 3 should be brought under § 1983. 4 B. Conversion to Civil Rights Complaint Not Appropriate 5 Next, the undersigned considers whether to convert the Petition into a § 1983 complaint. 6 “If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it names the correct 7 defendants and seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so long as it 8 warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an opportunity for 9 the litigant to withdraw or amend his or her complaint.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (remanding case 10 to district court to consider claim under § 1983). When filing a § 1983 claim, courts require 11 plaintiffs to “plead that (1) the defendants acting under color of state law (2) deprived plaintiffs of 12 rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes.” Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 13 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, “within the meaning of 14 § 1983, ‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform 15 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” 16 Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 17 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). 18 The undersigned finds the petition is not properly convertible to a § 1983 complaint for 19 two reasons. First, the petition is not amenable to conversion on its face because Petitioner’s 20 allegations about the denial of ceremonial wine are too conclusory to state a § 1983 claim. 21 Further, Petitioner names the Eastern District of California as the Respondent. Petitioner has not 22 named as the respondent the individuals who allegedly committed the affirmative acts or 23 omissions that violated his rights. Nor does Petitioner identify the type of relief he seeks, i.e., 24 monetary damages or injunctive relief, or both. Second, automatic conversion would be unfair to 25 Petitioner. The filing fee for a habeas petition is $5, and if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is 26 27 administrative process, a prisoner is not required to pursue his constitutional claim in the state court. Regarding Petitioner’s second claim, this Court does not sit as a super appellate court to determine 28 whether a state court improperly dismissed a state civil action absent an independent constitutional issue. 1 granted, the fee is forgiven. For civil rights cases, however, the filing fee is $350 plus an 2 administrative fee of $50 if granted in forma pauperis status. Under the Prisoner Litigation 3 Reform Act, a prisoner is required to pay the full filing fee, even if he is granted in forma 4 pauperis status, by way of deductions from the prisoner’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915(b)(1). If the Court did convert this action to a § 1983 action, Petitioner would face the 6 larger filing and administrative fees—which he might prefer not to do. 7 While the undersigned finds the petition is not amendable to conversion, Petitioner is free 8 to file a § 1983 complaint in a separate action. In doing so, Petitioner is advised that a complaint 9 must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 10 and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 11 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not require detailed 12 allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Iqbal, 556 at 678. If the allegations “do not 13 permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no 14 claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good 15 Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must 16 state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa 17 v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). The 18 complaint must state what actions each named defendant took that deprived plaintiff of 19 constitutional or other federal rights. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 20 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Further, a plaintiff must identify what relief he seeks on his complaint. 21 II. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 22 State prisoners in a habeas corpus action under § 2254 do not have an automatic right to 23 appeal a final order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 24 (2003). To appeal, a prisoner must obtain a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 25 see also R. Governing Section 2254 Cases 11 (requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate 26 of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner); Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); 27 United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). Where, as here, the court denies 28 habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the underlying constitutional 1 | claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability only “if jurists of reason would find it 2 || debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that 3 | jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 4 ruling.” Slack vy. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is present 5 | and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not 6 | conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should 7 | be allowed to proceed further.” Jd. Here, reasonable jurists would not find the undersigned’s 8 | conclusion debatable or conclude that petitioner should proceed further. The undersigned therefore 9 | recommends that a certificate of appealability not issue. 10 I. RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER 11 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 12 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a § 1983 civil rights complaint form. 13 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this case to a District Judge for the purposes of 14 reviewing these findings and recommendations. 15 It is further RECOMMENDED: 16 The Petition be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 1). 17 NOTICE TO PARTIES 18 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 19 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 20 | (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 21 | objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 22 | Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 23 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 24 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). *> | Dated: _ August 27, 2021 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 26 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28