Quine v. Ola ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SHILOH HEAVENLY QUINE, Case No. 24-cv-01202-JST 8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 9 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION; 10 ANISSA DE LA CRUZ, Warden, et al. DENYING REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL; DENYING CERTIFICATE 11 Respondents. OF APPEALABILITY 12 Re: ECF No. 7, 8, 9 13 14 Petitioner, an inmate at Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, California, 15 filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner’s 16 request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. ECF No. 7. For the reasons set forth below, 17 this petition is DISMISSED, and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 18 DISCUSSION 19 A. Standard of Review 20 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 21 custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in 22 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 23 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing 24 the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the 25 application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 26 B. Petitioner’s Claims 27 The petition alleges that, for the past two years, prison healthcare officials have repeatedly 1 these denials violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on deliberate indifference to an inmate’s 2 serious medical needs, are discriminatory, and violate the settlement agreement in C No. 14-cv- 3 2726 JST. Petitioner requests that the settlement agreement in C No. 14-cv-2726 JST be declared 4 moot, and that she be allowed to see a specialist doctor and receive the needed gender-affirming 5 surgeries. See generally ECF No. 1. 6 C. Dismissal for Lack of Habeas Jurisdiction 7 “‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a 8 petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 9 Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or 10 to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547 11 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). Habeas is the 12 “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier release’” from 13 confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 533-34 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 14 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); see Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998). Where a successful 15 challenge to a complaint related to imprisonment will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s 16 sentence, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is proper and habeas jurisdiction is absent. 17 See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). In Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059 18 (9th Cir. 2023), the Ninth Circuit clarified that whether a claim sounds in habeas does not turn on 19 the relief requested by the petitioner, but on “whether, based on the allegations in the petition, 20 release is legally required irrespective of the relief requested” because “success in . . . [the habeas] 21 action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Id. at 1071, 22 1073 (emphasis in original). 23 Here, habeas jurisdiction is lacking because Petitioner’s claims do not challenge the 24 validity of her confinement, nor does success on her claims legally require immediate release. In 25 fact, Petitioner does not seek immediate release. Rather, she seeks certain gender-affirming 26 surgeries and a referral to a specialist. These claims are challenges to her conditions of 27 confinement and should be brought in a civil rights action. See generally 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 1 is without prejudice to Petitioner bringing these claims in a civil rights action. See Ramirez v. 2 |} Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a [section] 1983 3 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the 4 || prisoner’s sentence.”). 5 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 6 The Court concludes that no “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition 7 states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right [or] that jurists of reason would find it 8 || debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 9 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows. 12 1. The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 7. 5 13 2. The Court DENIES as moot Petitioner’s requests for appointment of counsel, as 14 || this petition has been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 8, 9. 3 15 3. The Court DISMISSES the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and DENIES a a 16 || certificate of appealability. The dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new civil 3 17 rights action asserting the claims raised herein. The Clerk shall send Petitioner two copies of the 18 || civil rights complaint form. 19 4. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Respondents and against Petitioner, and 20 || close the case. 21 This order terminates ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: May 28, 2024 . 24 JON S. TIG 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28