(HC) Stephens v. Matterson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIMMIE EARL STEPHENS, No. 2:22-cv-00824 DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 G. MATTEROSN, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a two 2021 rules violations for 19 stalking and refusing to work. Presently before the court is petitioner’s motion to proceed in 20 forma pauperis (ECF No. 4), his petitioner (ECF No. 1) for screening, and petitioner’s request for 21 an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 6). For the reasons set forth below the court will recommend 22 that the petition be dismissed without leave to amend. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma 23 pauperis will be granted and his request for evidentiary hearing will be denied as moot. 24 I. In Forma Pauperis 25 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 26 the costs of suit. (ECF No. 4.) Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be 27 granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 28 //// 1 II. Screening Requirement 2 The court is required to screen all actions brought by prisoners who seek any form of 3 relief, including habeas relief, from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 4 governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a habeas petition or portion 5 thereof if the prisoner raises claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious” or fail to state a basis 6 on which habeas relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). This means the court must 7 dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 8 the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” Rule 4 Governing Section 2254 Cases. 9 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “[t]he Federal Rules of 10 Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these 11 rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules.” Drawing on the Federal Rules of Civil 12 Procedure, when considering whether a petition presents a claim upon which habeas relief can be 13 granted, the court must accept the allegations of the petition as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 14 89, 94 (2007), and construe the petition in the light most favorable to the petitioner, see Scheuer 15 v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than 16 those drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), but “[i]t is well-settled that 17 ‘[c]onclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant 18 habeas relief.’” Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting James v. Borg, 24 19 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994)). See also Corjasso v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874, 878 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Pro 20 se habeas petitioners may not be held to the same technical standards as litigants represented by 21 counsel.”); Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he petitioner is not entitled 22 to the benefit of every conceivable doubt; the court is obligated to draw only reasonable factual 23 inferences in the petitioner’s favor.”). 24 III. The Petition 25 Petitioner alleges that he was found guilty of a rules violation on January 27, 2021 for 26 stalking a correctional officer. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Petitioner claims that he asked questions for 27 two officers during the “discovery” period but was told the questions were irrelevant. (Id.) 28 Petitioner argues that this denied him due process but that that Lieutenant Lee found petitioner 1 guilty of a rule violation anyways. (Id.) Petitioner also asserts that he was found guilty of 2 another rule violation for refusing to work despite others not being written up for doing the same 3 thing. (Id. at 7.) 4 Petitioner claims that he received rule violations due to discriminated based on his race in 5 violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 8.) He also claims that Fifth and 6 Sixth Amendment rights were violated at the hearings where he received these rule violations. 7 (Id. at 5, 7.) Petitioner also states that that his First Amendment rights were violated though this 8 does not appear to be clearly explained in the petition. (Id. at 15.) Petitioner seeks an order from 9 the court directing petitioner to be released from prison. (Id.) 10 IV. Analysis 11 “Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a 12 petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” 13 Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curium). “Challenges to the validity of any 14 confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. 15 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement 16 may be presented in a § 1983 action.” Muhammad, 540 U.S. at 750. 17 “[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action is proper, where a successful 18 challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.” Ramirez v. 19 Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a 20 person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is 21 to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser, 411 U.S. at 484. “[W]hen a prisoner’s claim 22 would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ that claim does not lie at ‘the core of habeas 23 corpus,’ and may be brought, if at all, under § 1983.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n.13 24 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)). The “core of habeas corpus” is an 25 attack on “the fact or duration of his confinement,” in which a prisoner “seeks either immediate 26 release from that confinement or the shortening of its duration.” Preiser, 411 U.S. at 489. 27 Petitioner’s claim is materially similar to the challenge considered by the Ninth Circuit in 28 Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). In Nettles, a prisoner serving 1 a life sentence with the possibility of parole was found guilty of a disciplinary violation and, as a 2 result, suffered a revocation of thirty days good conduct credits. 830 F.3d at 927. The court 3 found that success on the merits of petitioner’s challenged disciplinary proceeding would not 4 necessarily impact the fact or duration of his confinement, and therefore his challenge did not fall 5 within “the core of habeas corpus.” Id. at 931, 934. The court reasoned that “[s]uccess on the 6 merits of Nettles’ claim would not necessarily lead to immediate or speedier release because the 7 expungement of the challenged disciplinary violation would not necessarily lead to a grant of 8 parole.” Id. at 934-35. 9 From a brief review of public records, it appears petitioner is serving an indeterminate 10 sentence and will only be released from prison at such time as the California Board of Parole 11 Hearings determines that he is suitable.1 Cal. Penal Code, § 3041(a)(4). Under California law, 12 the parole board is not required to find petitioner suitable or unsuitable for parole based on any 13 single factor. Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2281 (information and 14 circumstances considered in determining parole suitability). Rather, the parole board must 15 consider “‘all relevant and reliable information’” in determining parole suitability. Id. (quoting 16 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2281(b).) 17 Even if the challenged disciplinary hearings were expunged, it would not necessarily spell 18 an immediate or speedier release. Because disciplinary violations are not the only factor 19 considered when evaluating inmates for parole, the absence of the challenged disciplinary 20 violations would not necessarily spell earlier release. “If the invalidity of the disciplinary 21 proceedings, and therefore the restoration of good-time credits, would not necessarily affect the 22 length of time to be served, then the claim falls outside the core of habeas and may be brought in 23 § 1983.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 929 (fn. omitted) (citing Muhammad, 540 U.S. at 754-55). 24 Accordingly, petitioner’s claim is not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. 25 //// 26 27 1 Public information about can be the parole status of inmates in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation can be found at https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov. 28 Petitioner states in his petitioner that his prisoner number is C56483. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) 1 The claims raised in the petition may be cognizable if raised in a civil rights action. In an 2 appropriate case, a district court can directly convert a habeas petition into a civil rights 3 complaint. Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935-36. However, the court declines to consider conversion of 4 this action because there are several significant differences in a proceeding in habeas corpus 5 compared to a civil rights action. For instance, the filing fee for a habeas petition is $5, and if 6 leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, as it has been here, the fee is forgiven. For civil 7 rights cases, however, the fee is $400 and under the Prison Litigation Reform Act the prisoner is 8 required to pay $350, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way of deductions from income 9 to the prisoner’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). A prisoner who might be willing to 10 file a habeas petition for which he or she would not have to pay a filing fee might feel otherwise 11 about a civil rights complaint for which the fee would be deducted from income to his or her 12 account. Also, a civil rights complaint which is dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to 13 state a claim would count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is not true for habeas 14 cases. Based on these differences between habeas and civil rights cases, the court will 15 recommend that this petition be dismissed. Petitioner may file a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 16 1983 based on the allegations contained in the petition. 17 V. Request for Evidentiary Hearing 18 Petitioner has filed a request for an evidentiary hearing to “show that the facts underlying 19 the claims would be sufficient to establish clear and convincing evidence” in support of 20 petitioner’s claims. (ECF No. 6 at 4.) However, as it will be recommended that this action be 21 dismissed without leave to amend, this request will be denied as moot. 22 //// 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 VI. Conclusion 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma paupers (ECF No. 4) is granted; 4 2. Petitioner’s request for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 6) will be denied as moot; and 5 3. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a district judge to this action. 6 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition be dismissed without leave to amend 7 | because his claim is not cognizable. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 10 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections, 13 | he shall also address whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to 14 | which issues. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the 15 | applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 16 |} 2253(c)(3). Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after 17 | service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 18 || specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 19 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 | Dated: December 29, 2022 22 3 -BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 | DB:14 DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Habeas/S/step0824.scrn_fr 28