holding a Section 1983 action “is the exclusive 4 vehicle for claims brought by state prisoners that are not within the core of habeas 5 corpus”
How later courts described this case
- holding a Section 1983 action “is the exclusive 4 vehicle for claims brought by state prisoners that are not within the core of habeas 5 corpus”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10 FLOYD DEWAINE SCOTT, Case No. CV 20-8046-JVS (KK)
11 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
12 v.
13 C. JOHNSON, Warden,
14 Respondent.
15
16
17 I.
18 INTRODUCTION
19 Petitioner Floyd Dewaine Scott (“Scott”), an inmate at California State Prison –
20 Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”), filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
21 (“Petition”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Section 2254”). See ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”)
22 1 at 14. The Petition purports to challenge an August 22, 2019 disciplinary hearing
23 that resulted in 60 days of no phone, yard, recreation, or day room privileges, and the
24 loss of 30 days good time credit. Id. at 19. On September 14, 2020, the Court issued
25 an Order to Show Cause Why this Action Should Not Be Summarily Dismissed for
26 Failure to State a Cognizable Habeas Claim (“OSC”). Dkt. 6. On October 1, 2020,
27 Scott filed a response to the OSC. Dkt. 7. For the reasons discussed below, the
1 II.
2 SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
3 On August 26, 2020, Scott constructively filed1 the instant Petition. Dkt. 1.
4 The Petition sets forth four “grounds for relief.” Id. at 14–23.
5 Ground One alleges CSP-LAC correctional officer J. Fernald (“Fernald”) filed
6 a false Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) against Scott without first issuing a verbal
7 warning and retaliated against Scott for filing a 602 Appeal form. Id. at 15–18. Scott
8 “seeks to have (A) The False RVR . . . removed from his Prison Perso[n]nel File, [and]
9 (B) Criminal Charges brought against J. Fernald[.]” Id. at 18.
10 Ground Two alleges J. Varela (“Varela”), the senior hearing officer at Scott’s
11 August 22, 2019 disciplinary hearing, violated Scott’s due process and Eighth
12 Amendment rights by denying his request for a polygraph test and declining to require
13 supplemental reports from other correctional officers. Id. at 19–20. Scott seeks to
14 have Varela prosecuted for violating his constitutional rights. Id. at 20.
15 Ground Three alleges D. Barbato (“Barbato”), A.F. Martinez (“Martinez”), and
16 M. Hodges (“Hodges”) violated Scott’s due process and Eighth Amendment rights.
17 Id. at 20–22. Scott claims Barbato “classified the False RVR”; Martinez “failed to
18 correct the False RVR” or allow Scott to take a polygraph test; and Hodges “[failed]
19 to correct the False RVR,” “fully investigate the RVR,” and “seek the Supplemental
20 Reports from the [relevant] C/O’s[.]” Id. Scott seeks to have the RVR “removed
21 from [his] CDCR Person[n]el File with all copies and the Original Removed and given
22 to [him.]” Id. at 21.
23 Ground Four alleges the state courts failed to hold an evidentiary hearing in
24 each of Scott’s Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking to remove the RVR on
25 the grounds that prison staff violated his due process and Eighth Amendment rights.
26
1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a
27
pleading to mail to court, the Court deems the pleading constructively filed on the
1 Id. at 22; dkt. 7 at 9. Scott claims the state courts violated his due process and Sixth
2 Amendment right “to meaningful access to the Courts when they failed to hold an
3 evidentiary hearing.”2 Dkt. 1 at 22.
4 On September 14, 2020, the Court issued an OSC as to why the Petition
5 should not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. Dkt. 6 at 2. Scott was
6 instructed to respond no later than October 2, 2020 by 1) filing “a written response
7 explaining why Scott’s claims are cognizable on habeas review,” 2) filing “a First
8 Amended Petition curing” the failure to state a cognizable claim, or 3) voluntarily
9 dismissing this action with prejudice. Id. at 4.
10 On October 1, 2020, Scott filed a response to the OSC, arguing the Petition
11 states a cognizable claim. Dkt. 7 at 1.
12 III.
13 THE PETITION FAILS TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM
14 A. APPLICABLE LAW
15 A district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by a
16 person in state custody “only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the
17 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v.
18 McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991). “Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to
19 particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus; requests for relief
20 turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in” an action pursuant to
21 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)
22 (citation omitted). Thus, “when a prisoner’s claim would not necessarily spell
23 speedier release, that claim does not lie at the core of habeas corpus and may be
24
2 It is not clear from the Petition what relief Scott is seeking as a result of the
25
state courts’ failure to hold evidentiary hearings. To the extent Scott is requesting
either this Court order the state courts to hold an evidentiary hearing or this Court to
26
hold an evidentiary hearing, such relief is not available where, as here, the underlying
claims are not cognizable for the reasons discussed below. See Schriro v. Landrigan,
27
550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007) (“[I]f the record refutes the applicant’s factual allegations or
1 brought, if at all, under [Section] 1983.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n.13
2 (2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Nettles v. Grounds,
3 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding a Section 1983 action “is the exclusive
4 vehicle for claims brought by state prisoners that are not within the core of habeas
5 corpus”).
6 In addition, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (“Rule 8”), a habeas
7 petition must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is
8 entitled to relief,” and “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” FED. R.
9 CIV. P. 8(a), (d); see Petillo v. Los Angeles Dep’t. of Child. & Fam. Servs., No. CV 17-
10 08062-JFW (AS), 2018 WL 748290, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018) (applying Rule 8
11 standards to a habeas petition); Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 649 (2005) (“Rule 2(c) of
12 the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases requires a more detailed statement [than
13 Rule 8]. The habeas rule instructs the petitioner to ‘specify all the grounds for relief
14 available to [him]’ and to ‘state the facts supporting each ground.’”); Rule 2(c) of the
15 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.3
16 B. ANALYSIS
17 Here, success on the Petition would not “necessarily spell speedier release”;
18 therefore, Scott’s claims “do not lie at the core of habeas corpus.” Skinner, 562 U.S.
19 at 535 n.13. Rather, the specific relief Scott appears to request is that the RVR be
20 removed from his file and correctional officers Fernald and Varela be criminally
21 prosecuted for their actions. Dkt. 1 at 18, 20; Dkt. 7 at 11. Scott does not seek to
22 have the August 22, 2019 disciplinary hearing reversed, nor does he seek to have his
23 good time credits restored. In fact, Scott states, “the 30 days lost of good time credits
24 were automatically restored.” Dkt. 7 at 5, 11.4 In addition, while Scott speculates the
25
3 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts,
26 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS, https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/
default/files/rules_governing_section_2254_and_2255_cases_in_the_u.s._district_co
27 urts_-_dec_1_2019.pdf (last visited Oct. 23, 2020).
4 If in fact the 30 days of good time credits lost were automatically restored, any
1 | RVR “can extend a prison stay with a parole board,” id. at 7, he fails to demonstrate
2 | collateral consequences are likely to result from the RVR. See Johnson v. McDonald,
3 | No. CIV $10-1641-FCD-CMK-P, 2011 WL 777911, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2011)
4 | [In the prison disciplinary context, collateral consequences can be proven if the
5 | petitioner can show consequences which are not speculative or ephemeral but are
6 | likely to result from the disciplinary action being challenged.”).
7 Accordingly, based on the relief sought, the claims in the Petition are not
8 | cognizable on habeas review and must be brought, if at all, under Section 1983.5
9 IV.
10 ORDER
11 Thus, this Court ORDERS Judgment be entered summarily DISMISSING this
12 | action with prejudice.
13
14 A ff
15 Dated: October 29, 2020 tI J
HONORABLE JAMESW. SELNA
16 United States District Jidge
17
Presented by:
18
19
20 Keahy he
21 | HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO
39 United States Magistrate Judge
23 | Feb. 28, 2011) (finding no relief can be granted because the credits have already been
restored and dismissing the petition as moot).
24 | 5 When a prisoner’s claim is not cognizable in habeas corpus, the Court may
95, | construe the petition as a civil rights complaint. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 □□□□
249, 251 (1971), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Woodford
1% |& Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). Here, however, converting the Petition to a civil
rights action would Impose burdensome constraints—such as a significantly higher
filing fee, the means of collecting it, and restrictions on future filings—that could make
conversion more disadvantageous than dismissal of the Petition with prejudice to
28 filing a civil rights complaint. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936. The Court, thus, declines
to recharacterize the Petition as a civil rights complaint.