(HC) Dickson v. Phillips ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER DICKSON, No. 1:23-cv-01337-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 BRYAN PHILLIPS, Warden, TO SUMMARILY DISMISS PETITION 15 Respondent. [THIRTY DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. He filed the instant petition on September 8, 19 2023. The petition does not challenge the underlying conviction and instead presents various 20 claims concerning the conditions of his confinement. Petitioner also takes issue with a 21 disciplinary violation, but he fails to state a claim for relief. As discussed below, the Court will 22 recommend the petition be DISMISSED. 23 DISCUSSION 24 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 25 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 26 petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 27 entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 28 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 1 habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 2 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 3 2001). 4 B. Civil Rights Claims 5 The Petition mainly concerns Petitioner’s request for single-cell housing. He alleges his 6 double-cell status violates the California Government Code. He also clams that his mental health 7 status and physical disabilities require single-cell housing. 8 As an initial matter, Petitioner’s challenges concerning state law and prison regulations 9 are not cognizable in a federal habeas action. It is well-settled that federal habeas relief is not 10 available to state prisoners challenging state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) 11 (“We have stated many times that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law); 12 Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1997) (“alleged errors in the application of state 13 law are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus” proceedings). 14 Petitioner’s allegations also concern the conditions of his confinement and are not 15 cognizable in a federal habeas action. A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a 16 prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 17 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)). In contrast, a civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the 19 conditions of confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 20 U.S. at 499. Petitioner’s civil rights claims are not cognizable in a federal habeas action and must 21 be dismissed. Petitioner must seek relief for his complaints by way of a civil rights action. 22 In Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 936 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that a 23 district court has the discretion to construe a habeas petition as a civil rights action under § 1983. 24 However, recharacterization is appropriate only if it is “amenable to conversion on its face, 25 meaning that it names the correct defendants and seeks the correct relief,” and only after the 26 petitioner is warned of the consequences of conversion and is provided an opportunity to 27 withdraw or amend the petition. Id. Here, the Court does not find recharacterization to be 28 appropriate. Petitioner does not name the proper defendants and the claims are not amenable to 1 conversion on their face. Accordingly, the Court should not exercise its discretion to 2 recharacterize the action. 3 C. Rules Violation Report 4 Petitioner also states he was found guilty in a disciplinary proceeding for refusing to 5 accept assigned housing. According to his exhibits, on August 23, 2022, Officer B. Everidge 6 approached Petitioner’s cell and informed him that he would be receiving a cellmate. (Doc. 1 at 7 59.) Officer Everidge gave Petitioner a direct order to accept a compatible inmate. (Doc. 1 at 8 64.) Petitioner refused, stating, “I gotta take a 115, I can’t take a cellie.” (Doc. 1 at 59.) 9 Petitioner was then informed he would be receiving a CDC-115 Rules Violation Report for 10 violating Section 3005(c), which provides: “Refusing to Accept Assigned Housing: Inmates shall 11 not refuse to accept a housing assignment such as but not limited to, an integrated housing 12 assignment or a double cell assignment, when case factors do not preclude such.” (Doc. 1 at 64.) 13 On September 1, 2022, Petitioner was served with a copy of the Rules Violation Report. (Doc. 1 14 at 62.) The hearing was held on September 19, 2022. (Doc. 1 at 62.) The hearing officer found 15 that Petitioner had committed the charged offense and Petitioner was assessed a 90-day loss of 16 credits. (Doc. 1 at 64.) 17 Petitioner indicates he pursued his administrative remedies and also sought relief in the 18 state courts. All of his challenges were denied. 19 1. Due Process Rights in Prison Disciplinary Proceedings 20 Prisoners cannot be entirely deprived of their constitutional rights, but their rights may be 21 diminished by the needs and objectives of the institutional environment. Wolff v. McDonnell, 22 418 U.S. 539, 555 (1974). Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, 23 so a prisoner is not afforded the full panoply of rights in such proceedings. Id. at 556. Thus, a 24 prisoner’s due process rights are moderated by the “legitimate institutional needs” of a prison. 25 Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. 26 v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-455 (1984)). 27 When a prison disciplinary proceeding may result in the loss of good time credits, due 28 process requires that the prisoner receive: (1) advance written notice of at least 24 hours of the 1 disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional 2 goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written 3 statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. 4 Hill, 472 U.S. at 454; Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-567. In addition, due process requires that the 5 decision be supported by “some evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455 (citing United States ex rel. 6 Vatauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 106 (1927)). 7 Petitioner does not claim his due process protections were violated, and a review of the 8 exhibits reveals that all due process requirements were met. He was provided with more than 24 9 hours’ notice of the hearing, specifically 18 days. He does not claim that witnesses or 10 documentary evidence were denied. It also appears that Petitioner was provided with a written 11 copy of the disciplinary hearing determination. Finally, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that there 12 was not at least some evidence to support the decision. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 455 (“the 13 requirements of due process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison 14 disciplinary board to revoke good time credits.”) The Rules Violation Report of the officer 15 constituted some evidence of Petitioner’s guilt. 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Petitioner fails to state a claim that his due 17 process rights were violated. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564; Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. The petition should 18 be dismissed, and the Clerk of Court should be directed to send Petitioner a blank civil rights 19 complaint. 20 ORDER 21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District 22 Judge to the case. 23 RECOMMENDATION 24 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus 25 petition be DISMISSED and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to provide Petitioner with a blank 26 civil rights complaint form. 27 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 28 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 1 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 2 Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with 3 the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 4 Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 5 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 6 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: September 13, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28