Harris v. Oliver ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 * * * 8 BARRY HARRIS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00815-RFB-EJY 9 Petitioner, 10 v. ORDER 11 WARDEN OLIVER, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 15 Petitioner Barry Harris, proceeding pro se, has submitted a petition for writ of habeas 16 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1-1) and paid the filing fee (ECF No. 4). The petition 17 alleges that Harris’s constitutional rights are being violated because he is being kept in H.R.P. 18 administrative segregation1 even though he completed the “disciplinary segregation” time ordered 19 at his prison disciplinary hearing. He also alleges that, as a pretrial detainee, his confinement in 20 H.R.P. administrative segregation is preventing him from preparing his defense against pending 21 criminal charges. For reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss the petition. 22 Under Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court 23 must examine the habeas petition and dismiss it if it “plainly appears” the petitioner is not entitled 24 to relief. Rule 4, see also Rule 1(b) (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a 25 habeas corpus petition not covered by Rule 1(a)”); Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th 26 27 1 “H.R.P” stands for “high risk potential.” 1 Cir. 2019). Rule 4 authorizes courts to dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, 2 conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by procedural defects. Boyd v. Thompson, 147 3 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) 4 (collecting cases). 5 “The Supreme Court has recognized that ‘[f]ederal law opens two main avenues to relief 6 on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a 7 complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983.’” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 8 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016). (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam)). 9 “Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the 10 province of habeas corpus; requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be 11 presented in a § 1983 action....” Id. “[A] § 1983 action is the exclusive vehicle for claims brought 12 by state prisoners that are not within the core of habeas corpus.” Id. If success on a habeas claim 13 would not necessarily lead to a petitioner's immediate or earlier release from custody, the claim 14 does not fall within “the core of habeas corpus” and must be brought, “if at all,” in a § 1983 action. 15 Id. at 931. Habeas relief is also unavailable for “probabilistic” claims, i.e., claims that “require [the 16 court] to guess at the discretionary decisions of state officials in order to determine whether an 17 action sounds in habeas or § 1983, and which prerequisites must be met.” Id. at 934. 18 Neither of Harris’ claims, even if successful, would necessarily lead to his immediate or 19 speedier release from custody. Thus, his claims do not fall within “the core of habeas corpus.” His 20 avenue of relief, if any, would be § 1983 complaint. Because Harris fails to state a claim cognizable 21 in a proceeding under § 2254, the Court dismisses his habeas petition. 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed 23 to enter final judgment accordingly and close this case. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied as jurists of reason 25 would not find the dismissal to be debatable or wrong. 26 27 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall file the petition for writ of habeas 2 || corpus (ECF No. 1-1) and motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-2). The motion for 3 || appointment of counsel is denied as moot. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall also electronically serve the 5 || Respondents by adding Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford as counsel for Respondents and 6 || directing a notice of electronic filing of this order to his office. No response is required from 7 || Respondents. samy 8 DATED: January 8, 2024 RICHARD BOCT*WARE, II 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28