(HC) Gleason v. Bobbala ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY GLEASON, No. 2:20-cv-00406 GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 M.BOBBALA, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding in pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not, however, filed an in forma 19 pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). 20 Nevertheless, the undersigned will recommend summary dismissal of the pending petition based 21 on a failure to raise a federal cognizable claim. 22 Petitioner is currently confined in California State Prison, located in Sacramento County. 23 Petitioner has labeled his petition as a “petition for writ of habeas corpus; Rule 69. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 to the District Court Judge Assigned to this case.” ECF No. 1 at 1. In the petition, petitioner 25 indicates “this is NOT a petition regarding criminal conviction 3/18/2016, this is a request for 26 relief under Rule 69 Fed. R. Civ. P. Judgment Procedure[.] [A] money judgment is enforced by 27 writ, of execution unless the court directs otherwise.” Id. at 4. It appears petitioner seeks to 28 expedite the screening process of his currently pending §1983 civil rights action in Gleason v. 1 Lindquist, et al., 2:19-cv-01203-AC through a habeas petition. ECF No. 1 at 1, 4. 2 A federal court may not entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought by a person 3 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court unless the petition has been brought “on the 4 ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 5 States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Federal habeas corpus relief is available only for challenges to the 6 duration or legality of a prisoner’s confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 7 It is apparent from the petition, and petitioner’s own admissions, that he does not seek to 8 challenge the duration or legality of his confinement. Instead, petition seeks to enforce an alleged 9 money judgment in federal court by way of Fed. R. Civ. P. 69. However, a writ of habeas corpus 10 is not the appropriate vehicle for such relief. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus 11 Cases Under Section 2254 provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly 12 appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not 13 entitled to relief in the district court. Accordingly, this petition should be dismissed for failure to 14 state a cognizable federal claim. 15 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 16 shall assign this case to a district judge. 17 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 (ECF No. 1) be summarily DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 21 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 22 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 23 Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 24 the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991). 25 Dated: March 2, 2020 26 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28