(HC) Rabiee v. Shasta County Correctional Facility ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAMID RABIEE, No. 2:20-CV-0813-TLN-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 SHASTA COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, an inmate in county custody proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a 19 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 Petitioner initiated this action with a form petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 21 ECF No. 1. In the original filing, Petitioner states that he is a pre-trial detainee at the Shasta 22 County Jail. See id. at 2. Petitioner outlines two grounds for relief. First, Petitioner asserts that 23 jail officials have imposed illegal restraints on his ability to represent himself pro se in his 24 underlying criminal action. See id. at 3. Second, Petitioner claims that jail officials have used 25 excessive force against him. See id. at 4. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Since filing his original petition, Petitioner has separately filed supporting exhibits, 2 see ECF No. 9, a first and second amended petition, see ECF Nos. 10 and 11, as well as a 3 “supplement,” see ECF No. 12. Neither the first nor second amended petitions are presented on a 4 court-approved form. While Petitioner’s more recent filings are less clear than his initial filing, it 5 appears Petitioner continues to raise the same two claims. Further, Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 15 allows amendment once as of right. Thus, Petitioner’s first amended petition may 7 be deemed properly filed as of right, Petitioner’s second amended petition and “supplement” were 8 filed without leave of court and, therefore, were improperly filed to the extent they seek to amend 9 the original or first amended petitions. 10 Under Eastern District of California Local Rule 220, pleadings must be complete 11 in and of themselves without the need to reference prior pleadings. On the current record, it is 12 entirely unclear which pleading Petitioner intends to be the operative pleading. In this regard, the 13 Court notes that Petitioner’s initial petition is far clearer in terms of the claims presented than any 14 of Petitioner’s subsequent filings. Petitioner will be required to file a single operative petition 15 which states all claims for relief and supporting facts. 16 In filing an amended petition, Petitioner should bear in mind the following general 17 principles. First, relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is typically only available to individuals who are 18 in custody pursuant to a state court judgment of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). To the 19 extent Petitioner remains a pre-trial detainee, he is not in custody pursuant to a state court 20 conviction and may be able to pursue relief in the state trial court where his criminal case is 21 pending. Second, to the extent Petitioner asserts claims related to the conditions of his 22 confinement at the Shasta County Jail, such claims are not cognizable under § 2254. When a 23 state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody – either the fact of confinement or the duration 24 of confinement – and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or 25 immediate release, such a challenge is cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 26 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda, 27 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 28 1995) (per curiam). Where a prisoner challenges the conditions of confinement, as opposed to the 1 | fact or duration of confinement, his remedy lies in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2 | See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Skinner vy. Switzer, 131 3 | S.Ct. 1289, 1298-99 n.13 (2011) (stating that “. . when a prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily 4 | spell speedier release,’ that claim does not lie at ‘the core of habeas corpus’ and may be brought, 5 | if at all, under § 1983"). Any claim that does not necessarily shorten an inmate’s incarceration, if 6 | successful, falls outside the scope of habeas jurisdiction. See Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1151, 7 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cannot be used to challenge the conditions of 8 | confinement, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be used to challenge the fact or duration of 9 | confinement. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Petitioner’s original, first, and second amended petitions, and supplement 12 thereto, are dismissed with leave to amend; 13 2. Petitioner shall file an amended petition within 30 days of the date of this 14 | order on the form provided; and 15 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve on Petitioner this Court’s form 16 | habeas corpus petition. 17 18 | Dated: August 6, 2021 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28