(PC) Medina v. Campbell ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CESARIO MEDINA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00381-EPG-HC 10 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED PETITION 11 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 12 TAMMY CAMPBELL, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner Cesario Medina is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a first amended 16 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Given that the instant petition 17 challenges conditions of confinement and thus, is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus, the 18 undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed. 19 I. 20 DISCUSSION 21 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 22 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 23 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 24 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 25 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 26 A. Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction 27 By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he 1 is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 2 § 2254(a). A claim is cognizable in habeas when a prisoner challenges “the fact or duration of his 3 confinement” and “seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the shortening of its 4 duration.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). In contrast, a civil rights action 5 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of 6 confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141–42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. 7 In the instant petition, Petitioner alleges that the California Department of Corrections 8 and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and Corcoran State Prison are not allowing Petitioner to have in- 9 person contact visits with his minor children and grandchild. (ECF No. 1 at 3).1 Petitioner does 10 not challenge his underlying criminal conviction or sentence or the fact or duration of his 11 confinement in the instant petition. Rather, the instant petition only challenges the denial of in- 12 person contact visits. The Ninth Circuit has “long held that prisoners may not challenge mere 13 conditions of confinement in habeas corpus.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 14 2016) (en banc) (citing Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891–92 (9th Cir. 1979)). As Petitioner’s 15 claims do not fall within “the core of habeas corpus,” Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487, they must be 16 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Nettles, 830 F.3d at 931. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to 17 state a cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief. 18 B. Conversion to § 1983 Civil Rights Action 19 “If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it names the correct 20 defendants and seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so long as it 21 warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an opportunity for 22 the litigant to withdraw or amend his or her complaint.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (quoting Glaus 23 v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)). The Court notes that habeas corpus and 24 prisoner civil rights actions differ in a variety of respects, such as the proper defendants, filing 25 fees, exhaustion requirements, and restrictions on future filings (e.g., the Prison Litigation 26 Reform Act’s three-strikes rule). Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (citing Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 27 839, 841 (7th Cir. 2011); Glaus, 408 F.3d at 388). 1 Due to these differences and the disadvantages that recharacterization may have on 2 | Petitioner’s claims, the undersigned finds that it would be inappropriate to construe the habeas 3 | petition as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court notes that the filing fee for 4 | § 1983 civil rights cases is $350, and Petitioner is required to pay the full amount by way of 5 | deductions from income to Petitioner’s trust account, even if granted in forma pauperis status. 6 | See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)C1). 7 I. 8 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 9 Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that that the petition for writ 10 | of habeas corpus be dismissed. 11 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 12 | the present matter. 13 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 14 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 15 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 16 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 17 | written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 18 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 19 | United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 20 | U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 21 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 22 | 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25] Dated: _May 4, 2023 [Je hey — %6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28