(HC) Broadnax v. Rodriguez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COTTRELL BROADNAX, No. 1:22-cv-01640-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 13 v. PETITION 14 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT RYAN RODRIGUEZ, et al., TO PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH 15 BLANK HABEAS CORPUS FORMS Respondents. 16 [THIRTY DAY DEADLINE] 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. He filed the instant petition on December 27, 20 2022. The petition is illegible and difficult to comprehend, and the Court cannot ascertain 21 Petitioner’s claims. Therefore, the petition will be dismissed with leave to file a First Amended 22 Petition. 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. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim 5 The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) 6 states: 7 The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody 8 pursuant to a judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 9 10 (emphasis added). See also Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 11 States District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack 12 by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 13 484 (1973). 14 Furthermore, to succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must 15 demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court 16 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme 17 Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the 18 State court proceeding. 19 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),(2). 20 In addition to the above, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires 21 that the petition: 22 (1) Specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2) State the facts supporting each ground; 23 (3) State the relief requested; (4) Be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and 24 (5) Be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242. 25 26 The instant petition is deficient for a number of reasons. First, it is illegible. Petitioner 27 has written in all of the margins, sometimes vertically on the page, to the point where it is 28 impossible to follow. He has placed fingerprints on every page obscuring his handwriting. He 1 has added lines in addition to the space provided for his answer by writing within the form’s 2 questions, further adding to the confusion. 3 Second, Petitioner fails to clearly specify his grounds for relief, the facts supporting his 4 grounds, and the relief requested. For instance, in claims one through three, he states he is being 5 subjected to illegal confinement, but he fails to state why or how. He then names medical custody 6 staff, a nurse, and a correctional officer. It is unclear why these individuals are named, how they 7 are involved, or how they pertain to his claims of illegal confinement. Petitioner also references a 8 pending order of transfer and partial dismissal in what appears to be another case, but he provides 9 no further details. Moreover, if indeed he is seeking relief based on a pending order in another 10 case in this Court, he should raise such claim in that case. 11 Third, although Petitioner references an Alameda County conviction, it appears he may be 12 attempting to bring challenges to the conditions of his confinement. For instance, he mentions 13 being quarantined due to COVID-19 and possible actions taken by medical staff. He also notes 14 “malicious, vicious, scandalous, racist acts” and a “hate crime.” Petitioner is advised that a 15 habeas corpus petition is the method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his 16 confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 17 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)). However, claims concerning the conditions of confinement must be raised 18 in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 19 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. To the extent Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of 20 confinement, he must do so in a civil rights complaint. They are not cognizable in a federal 21 habeas action and are subject to dismissal. 22 For the foregoing reasons, the petition must be dismissed. Petitioner will be granted an 23 opportunity to file a First Amended Petition curing these deficiencies. Petitioner is advised that 24 he should entitle his pleading, “First Amended Petition,” and he should reference the instant case 25 number. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the action. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 ORDER 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 4 for failure to state a claim; 5 2) Petitioner is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a 6 First Amended Petition; and 7 3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide Petitioner with a blank habeas corpus 8 form. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: January 5, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28