Cooper v. Davis ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAN COOPER, Case No. 20-03253 BLF (PR) 11 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 v. 13 14 RON DAVIS, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Dkt. No. 8. 20 For the reasons discussed below, the instant petition will be dismissed. 21 22 DISCUSSION 23 Petitioner claims he was denied parole based on “fabricated evidence submitted into 24 [his] “C” files.” Dkt. No. 1 at 5. Petitioner states that he is not challenging the outcome of 25 the parole hearing at this time, “but the unfairness practiced by San Quentin Staff who 26 placed this information in the files without advising petitioner in a timely manner, which 27 1 precluded him from timely challenging such information as one bogus [sic].” Id. at 9. The 2 information was a report that on August 8, 2017, Petitioner’s wife was discovered to be 3 carrying contraband on her person when she came to visit Petitioner at San Quentin State 4 Prison. Id. at 17. Petitioner filed an inmate grievance regarding the information on June 5 24, 2019. Id. at 15. Accordingly, it appears that Petitioner was denied parole sometime 6 before then in 2019. 7 Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or 8 speedier release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 533-34 (2011) 9 (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); see Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 10 740, 747 (1998); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 11 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). “Where the prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier 12 release,’ however, suit may be brought under § 1983.’” Skinner, 562 U.S. at 533-34 13 (quoting Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82). In fact, a § 1983 action is the exclusive remedy for 14 claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the ‘core of habeas corpus.’” Nettles v. 15 Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487). 16 A claim that meets the statutory criteria of § 1983 may be asserted unless it is within the 17 core of habeas corpus because “its success would release the claimant from confinement or 18 shorten its duration.” Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 841 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 19 Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500). Here, Petitioner explicitly states that he is not challenging the 20 denial of parole. Rather, he is challenging the inclusion of information in his “C” file 21 which may affect his future eligibility. As such, even if he were successful in having that 22 report removed, it would not “necessarily spell speedier release.” Skinner, 562 U.S. at 23 533-34. Accordingly, Petitioner’s sole remedy in having the challenged information 24 removed from his “C” file is by filing a § 1983 action since his claim does not lie at the 25 core of habeas corpus. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 931. 26 Although a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the 1 || Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the Court declines to do so here. The 2 || difficulty with construing a habeas petition as a civil rights complaint is that the two forms 3 || used by most prisoners request different information and much of the information 4 || necessary for a civil rights complaint is not included in the habeas petition filed here. 5 || Examples of the potential problems created by using the habeas petition form rather than 6 || the civil rights complaint form include the potential omission of intended defendants, 7 || potential failure to link each defendant to the claims, and potential absence of an adequate 8 || prayer for relief. 9 Additionally, there is doubt whether the prisoner is willing to pay the $350.00 civil 10 || action filing fee to pursue his claims. It is not in the interest of judicial economy to allow 11 || prisoners to file civil rights actions on habeas forms because virtually every such case, 2 including this one, will be defective at the outset and require additional court resources to E 13 || deal with the problems created by the different filing fees and the absence of information S 14 on the habeas form. 16 CONCLUSION 5 17 For the foregoing reasons, this action for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED 5 18 || without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 19 || preferably using the court’s civil rights complaint form. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 20 The Clerk is instructed to include two copies of the prisoner civil rights complaint 21 || form to Petitioner with a copy of this order, along with an In Forma Pauperis Application. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: September 14, 2020_ fod Leloys coward BETH CABSON FREEMAN 24 United States District Judge 25 Order of Dismissal P:\PRO-SE\BLF\HC.20\03253Cooper_dism(he-cr).docx 27