(HC) Duran v. Clark ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL EDWARD DURAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00618-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS 14 KEN CLARK, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Paul Edward Duran is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Given that the instant petition challenges 19 conditions of confinement and thus, is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus, the undersigned 20 recommends that the petition be dismissed. 21 I. 22 DISCUSSION 23 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 24 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 25 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 26 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 27 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. /// 1 A. Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction 2 By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in 3 behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he 4 is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 5 § 2254(a). A claim is cognizable in habeas when a prisoner challenges “the fact or duration of his 6 confinement” and “seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the shortening of its 7 duration.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). In contrast, a civil rights action 8 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of 9 confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141–42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. 10 In the instant petition, Petitioner asserts that he has not been afforded law library access 11 at Corcoran and Calipatria State Prisons. Specifically, Petitioner claims that he is not allowed to 12 make copies of his criminal case trial transcripts, which he intends to send to the California 13 Innocence Project. (ECF No. 1 at 3).1 Although Petitioner states that he is actually innocent and 14 seeks a proper evidentiary hearing in state court, Petitioner does not challenge his underlying 15 criminal conviction or sentence or the fact or duration of his confinement in the instant petition. 16 Rather, the instant petition only challenges the denial of law library access and transcript copies. 17 (ECF No. 1 at 3). The Ninth Circuit has “long held that prisoners may not challenge mere 18 conditions of confinement in habeas corpus.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 19 2016) (en banc) (citing Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891–92 (9th Cir. 1979)). As Petitioner’s 20 claims do not fall within “the core of habeas corpus,” Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487, they must be 21 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Nettles, 830 F.3d at 931. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to 22 state a cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief. 23 B. Conversion to § 1983 Civil Rights Action 24 “If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it names the correct 25 defendants and seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so long as it 26 warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an opportunity for 27 the litigant to withdraw or amend his or her complaint.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (quoting Glaus 1 v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)). The Court notes that habeas corpus and 2 prisoner civil rights actions differ in a variety of respects, such as the proper defendants, filing 3 fees, exhaustion requirements, and restrictions on future filings (e.g., the Prison Litigation 4 Reform Act’s three-strikes rule). Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (citing Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 5 839, 841 (7th Cir. 2011); Glaus, 408 F.3d at 388). 6 Due to these differences and the disadvantages that recharacterization may have on 7 Petitioner’s claims, the undersigned finds that it would be inappropriate to construe the habeas 8 petition as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court notes that the filing fee for 9 § 1983 civil rights cases is $350, and Petitioner is required to pay the full amount by way of 10 deductions from income to Petitioner’s trust account, even if granted in forma pauperis status. 11 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Moreover, the petition names Ken Clark, the Warden of Corcoran, 12 as Respondent and thus, may not name the correct defendants. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 13 662, 676 (2009) (“[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the 14 official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”). 15 II. 16 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 17 Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that that the petition for writ 18 of habeas corpus be dismissed. 19 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 20 the present matter. 21 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 22 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 23 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 24 THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 25 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 26 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 27 United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 1 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 2 | 834, 839 (th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5| Dated: _ June 2, 2022 [Je hey —— 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28