(HC) Carroll v. Warden ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TREMAYNE CARROLL, Case No. 1:21-cv-01813-HBK 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION1 13 v. FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 14 WARDEN, (Doc. No. 1) 15 Respondent. ORDER TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 Petitioner Tremayne Carroll is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on his petition for writ of 20 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). This matter is before the court for 21 preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. See R. Governing 22 § 2254 Cases 4; 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas petition if 23 it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 24 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). Because 25 the petition is duplicative of his other filed cases and raises a civil rights claim, the undersigned 26 recommends that the petition be dismissed. 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 incarcerated at the Central California Women’s Facility (“CCWF”) located in 3 Chowchilla, California. According to the petition, petitioner has been subjected to civil rights 4 violations including “hate crimes, ADA discrimination, cruel and unusual punishment, reckless 5 endangerment and deliberate indifference.” (Doc. 1 at 3). Petitioner alleges hate crimes 6 including being punched in the face, having hot coffee thrown in the face, being “snatched out of” 7 a wheelchair and repeatedly punched, all while “enduring” homophobic slurs; and “being told 8 that these attacks were encouraged” by CCWF staff. (Id. at 3, 6). It is unclear from the face of 9 the petition what exact relief Petitioner is seeking. 10 The Court takes judicial notice that Petitioner has filed three previous habeas petitions in 11 this court: Carroll et. al. v. Lozano, No. No. 1:19-cv-01360-JLT (HC) (transferred to Central 12 District of California); Carroll v. State of California et. al., No. 2:19-cv-01904-WBS-EFB 13 (dismissed for failure to pay filing fee or file in forma pauperis application); and Carroll v. 14 Covello, No. 2:20-cv-12101-DMC (transferred to Central District of California). The Court also 15 takes judicial notice that Petitioner has filed thirteen previous § 1983 prisoner rights complaints in 16 this court: Carroll v. Virga, et. al., No. 2:11-cv-02611-KJN (dismissed for failure to file a civil 17 rights complaint); Carroll v. Virga, et. al., No. 2:12-cv-01327-KJN (dismissed for failure to file 18 amended complaint after leave was granted); Carroll v. Brown, et. al., No. 2:12-cv-02584-TLN- 19 DAD (dismissed for failure to complete in forma pauperis application); Carroll v. Brown, No. 20 2:13-cv-00131-DAD (dismissed as duplicative); Carroll v. Knipp, et. al., No. 2:13-cv-00215- 21 LKK-CKD (dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Carroll v. CDCR, et. al., 22 No. 2:14-cv-01081-AC (dismissed for failure to pay filing fee or file in forma pauperis 23 application); Carroll v. State of California, et. al., No. 2:16-cv-01759-TLN-KJN (dismissed for 24 failure to file amended complaint or otherwise respond to court order); Carroll v. Spearman, No. 25 2:16-cv-02443-JAM-EFB (dismissed for failure to file amended complaint); Carroll v. Spearman, 26 et. al., No. 2:16-cv-02493-EFB (dismissed as duplicative); Carroll v. Spearman, No. 2:17-cv- 27 00862-JAM-DB (dismissed for failure to file amended complaint or dismiss the action); Carroll 28 v. State of California et. al., No. 2:19-cv-02324-TLN-CKD (dismissed for failure to complete in 1 forma pauperis application); Carroll v. Covello, No. 2:20-cv-01707-JAM-KJN (dismissed for 2 failure to file amended complaint); and Carroll v. CDCR et. al., No. 1:22-cv-00363-BAM. The 3 thirteenth petition at No. 1:22-cv-00363-BAM was filed after the instant habeas petition on 4 March 29, 2022, and remains pending. 5 I. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 6 “It is well established that a district court has broad discretion to control its own docket, 7 and that includes the power to dismiss duplicative claims.” M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., 681 F.3d 8 1082, 1091 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688- 9 89 (9th Cir. 2007). “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its 10 discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the 11 previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both 12 actions.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. In “assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the 13 first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies 14 to the action, are the same.” Id. at 689. 15 Here, the petition, although on the preapproved § 2254 form, does not challenge the fact 16 or length of petitioner’s confinement. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F. 2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) 17 (noting purpose of habeas is to challenge “legality or duration” of a petitioner’s incarceration, 18 quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)). Instead, the petition complains about 19 the conditions of petitioner’s confinement, which is properly challenged in a civil rights action 20 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. While the court has discretion to construe 21 a habeas petition as a civil rights action under § 1983, such recharacterization is appropriate only 22 if it is “amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it names the correct defendants and 23 seeks the correct relief.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 936 (9th Cir. 2016). The undersigned 24 does not find recharacterization proper in this case. Petitioner does not name as defendants any of 25 the individuals who he alleges committed the offensive acts. Instead, Petitioner names “Warden” 26 as the named respondent. (Doc. No. 1 at 1). Further, the facts of this case closely parallel the 27 facts complained of in petitioner’s civil rights action filed case at No. 1:22-cv-00363-BAM. 28 Therefore, the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed because it raises claims 1 | relating to petitioner’s conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of his confinement, 2 | and is duplicative of his later-filed civil rights action. 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 4 The Clerk of Court is directed shall assign this case to a district judge for the purposes of 5 || reviewing these findings and recommendations. 6 It is further RECOMMENDED: 7 The petition (Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED. 8 NOTICE TO PARTIES 9 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 11 || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 12 || objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 13 | Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 14 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 15 | 838-39 (Oth Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 | Dated: _ April 24, 2022 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 18 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28