(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 DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 TO DISMISS PETITION MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHEILA K. 15 OBERTO, et al., [TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE] 16 Respondents. 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 commenced this case by filing a habeas 20 petition on December 27, 2022. After conducting a preliminary review, the Court found the 21 petition to be illegible and nonsensical. The Court could not ascertain Petitioner’s claims. The 22 petition was dismissed with leave to file a First Amended Petition. 23 On January 17, 2023, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition. For the same reasons, as 24 before, the Court finds the petition fails to state a cognizable claim and will recommend the 25 petition and action be dismissed. 26 DISCUSSION 27 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 28 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 1 petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 2 entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 3 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 4 habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 5 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 6 2001). 7 B. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim 8 The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) 9 states: 10 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 11 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. 12 13 (emphasis added). See also Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 14 States District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack 15 by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 16 484 (1973). 17 Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner 18 must demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court 19 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme 20 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 21 State court proceeding. 22 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),(2). 23 In addition to the above, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires 24 that the petition: 25 (1) Specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2) State the facts supporting each ground; 26 (3) State the relief requested; (4) Be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and 27 (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. 28 1 Like the initial petition, the amended petition is deficient for a number of reasons. First, 2 although the pleading is entitled “First Amended Petition,” it is on a civil rights complaint form, 3 and Petitioner has now named the undersigned, clerks of the Court, the CDCR, and KVSP as 4 defendants. Petitioner cannot bring civil a rights complaint in a habeas action, see Preiser v. 5 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), and the defendants named in the caption are improper 6 respondents, see Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 7 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996). 8 Second, the petition is partially illegible. On page 5, Petitioner has attached a form 9 vertically across the page completely obscuring the page beneath. (Doc. 5 at 5.) 10 Third, Petitioner has failed to clearly specify his grounds for relief, the facts supporting 11 his grounds, and the relief requested. For example, Claim 1 reads: “Fact: (ALL), (USPS), 12 Mailroom, In-Out, Custody, Response(s), “Delivered KVSP, by [undecipherable], Fac A, Bldg. 3, 13 Staff. (Bogus).” (Doc. 5 at 3.) In his supporting facts, Petitioner claims “It is (clear) to 14 Plaintiff/Petitioner that (ALL) USD, Judges, Magistrate Judges, Clerks, Deputy Clerks, 15 Paralegals, and/or Administrators, Staff, at USDC, SF, SJ, Oakland, Fresno, Sacramento and 16 Beyond, is [sic] defending and protecting the interest & liability of the Defendants/Respondents.” 17 (Doc. 5 at 3-4.) Petitioner then lists other federal cases and then claims the IRS is depriving him 18 of $1,400.00. (Doc. 5 at 4.) The claim is difficult to decipher, completely unsupported, and not 19 cognizable in a habeas action. In Claim 2, Petitioner demands that continued litigation be 20 bypassed and immediate relief be granted. (Doc. 5 at 4.) He provides no reason for his demand, 21 but asserts he is being denied relief from the sentencing court in Alameda County, also for 22 “reasons (unknown).” (Doc. 5 at 4.) Again, Petitioner fails to present a claim for relief. 23 Fourth, Petitioner mentions other claims throughout the pleading, such as mailroom 24 issues, but those complaints sound in civil rights. Petitioner names correctional staff, custody 25 staff, medical staff, records staff, and accounting staff as defendants. Complaints against these 26 individuals clearly concern the conditions of Petitioner’s confinement, not the underlying 27 conviction. Such claims must be raised in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 28 McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition must be dismissed. Petitioner was granted an 2 opportunity to cure the foregoing deficiencies, but he has failed to do so, and another opportunity 3 would only prove futile. Therefore, the Court will recommend the action be dismissed. 4 ORDER 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district 6 judge to the case. 7 RECOMMENDATION 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the First Amended Petition be 9 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim, and the case be TERMINATED. 10 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 11 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 12 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 13 Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections 14 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 15 and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 16 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 17 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 18 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: January 23, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28