noting purpose 11 of habeas is to challenge “legality or duration” of a petitioner’s incarceration, quoting Preiser v. 12 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)
How later courts described this case
- noting purpose 11 of habeas is to challenge “legality or duration” of a petitioner’s incarceration, quoting Preiser v. 12 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 PERCY L. BROWN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00629-JLT-HBK (HC)
12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO
13 v. DISMISS1
14 BRYAN D. PHILLIPS, ET AL., FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 13)
16
17
18 Petitioner Percy L. Brown (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se on his First
19 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on June 12, 2023.
20 (Doc. No. 9, “Petition” or “First Amended Petition”). In response, Respondent filed a Motion to
21 Dismiss on August 9, 2023. (Doc. No. 13). Petitioner did not file an opposition to the Motion to
22 Dismiss and the time to do so has expired. (See Doc. No. 10, order directing Respondent to file a
23 response and advising Petitioner that he had 21 days to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss).
24 For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the district court grant
25 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the First Amended Petition because it does not
26 challenge the fact of length of Petitioner’s confinement.
27
1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302
28 (E.D. Cal. 2022).
1 I. BACKGROUND
2 Petitioner is serving an indeterminate 17-year to life sentence in the California Substance
3 Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran State Prison for his 2015 conviction for second degree
4 murder, vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, and failure to stop at the scene of an
5 accident resulting in death or injury. (See Doc. No. 9 at 1). According to the First Amended
6 Petition, on August 2, 2021, a “Counseling Only” Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) was issued to
7 Petitioner for disobeying an order to return to his assigned section. (Doc. No. 9 at 18). A copy of
8 the RVR attached to the Petition indicates that Petitioner was given a verbal counseling for
9 disobeying orders, after which he became aggressive and was escorted out of the building. (Id.).
10 Petitioner claims he was leaning on his walking cane for five minutes because he was in pain and
11 correctional officers refused to allow him in his “section,” he was handed mail by another inmate
12 who asked him to place the slip in the box next to the entrance, and when Petitioner complied
13 with that request an argument ensued between Petitioner and a correctional officer. (Id. at 7-8).
14 Petitioner raises the following claims in his First Amended Petition: (1) “retaliation to free
15 speech for disability discrimination and denial of direct evidence video”; and (2) violation of
16 Petitioner’s due process rights “effect[ing] eligibility for parole.” (Id. at 4, 12-15). As relief,
17 Petitioner asks the Court to vacate and expunge the Counseling Only RVR dated August 2, 2021.
18 (Id. at 15). In response, Respondent moves to dismiss the Petition for lack of federal habeas
19 jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 13). Specifically, Respondent argues that success on the Petition would
20 not affect the duration of Petitioner’s confinement. (Id. at 2). As noted supra, Petitioner did not
21 file a response to the motion to dismiss, nor request an extension of time to respond, and the time
22 for doing so has expired.
23 II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
24 Under Rule 4, if a petition is not dismissed at screening, the judge “must order the
25 respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response” to the petition. R. Governing 2254 Cases
26 4. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 state that “the judge may want to authorize the
27 respondent to make a motion to dismiss based upon information furnished by respondent.” A
28 motion to dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus is construed as a request for the court to
1 dismiss under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d
2 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas petition if it
3 “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d
4 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).
5 “The habeas statute unambiguously provides that a federal court may issue a writ of
6 habeas corpus to a state prisoner ‘only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the
7 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’” Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010)
8 (per curiam) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). If a prisoner’s claim “would necessarily demonstrate
9 the invalidity of confinement or its duration,” a habeas petition is the appropriate avenue for the
10 claim. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005). In contrast, if a favorable judgment for the
11 petitioner would not “necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement,” he
12 may assert his claim only under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th
13 Cir. 2016). In Nettles, the Ninth Circuit, in analyzing Supreme Court precedent distinguishing
14 relief available via § 1983 or habeas corpus, concluded if a state prisoner’s claim does not lie at
15 “the core of habeas corpus,” meaning where success on a claim would not necessarily lead to an
16 immediate or speedier release, then the claim “may not be brought in habeas corpus but must be
17 brought, ‘if at all,’ under § 1983.” Id. at 931 (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487
18 (1973); 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973); Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 523, 535 (2011).
19 1. Claim not Cognizable Under Nettles
20 Initially, Petitioner does not assert that he lost any good time credits as a result of the
21 RVR. (See Doc. No. 9). As noted by Respondent, a Counseling RVR does not result in the loss
22 of credits. (Doc. No. 13 at 2-3 (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3312) (Counseling Only RVR
23 issued when “minor misconduct recurs after verbal counseling or if documentation of minor
24 misconduct is needed.”)). Significant here is that Petitioner is serving an indeterminate life
25 sentence with the possibility of parole. Thus, even if the Counseling Only RVR was to be
26 expunged from Petitioner’s record as he requests, it would not necessarily lead to a grant of
27 parole because under California law the parole board must consider all relevant reliable
28 information in determining suitability for parole, and “has the authority to deny parole on the
1 basis of any grounds presently available to it.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935 (citing Ramirez v.
2 Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003)). Because success on neither of Petitioner’s claims
3 would not necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement, they do not fall
4 within “the core of habeas corpus,” and are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus. See id.; see
5 also Martinez v. Sec’y of Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 2022 WL 3129136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July
6 26, 2022) (finding petitioner’s claim based on issuance of a counseling only RVR did not result in
7 credit loss and was therefore not cognizable in federal habeas corpus).
8 2. Conversion to § 1983 Civil Rights Action
9 Although on the preapproved § 2254 form, Petitioner does not challenge either the fact or
10 length of his confinement. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F. 2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting purpose
11 of habeas is to challenge “legality or duration” of a petitioner’s incarceration, quoting Preiser v.
12 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)). Instead, the Petition alleges civil rights violations,
13 specially a First Amendment violation and Fourteenth Amendment violation, which are properly
14 challenged in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. While
15 the court has discretion to construe a habeas petition as a civil rights action under § 1983, such
16 recharacterization is appropriate only if it is “amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it
17 names the correct defendants and seeks the correct relief.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (quoting
18 Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)).
19 The undersigned does not recommend recharacterization in this case. Petitioner does not
20 seek monetary damages; rather, as discussed supra, the only remedy sought is expungement of
21 the Counseling Only RVR due to its presumed effect on Petitioner’s eligibility for parole.
22 Moreover, automatic conversion is improper due to the discrepancy in filing fees. In granting
23 Petitioner in forma pauperis status, the Court waived the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas corpus
24 action, as opposed to the $350.00 filing fee that is payable over time and applicable to prisoners
25 prosecuting a civil rights action. In addition, if a civil rights complaint is dismissed as malicious,
26 frivolous, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, that dismissal can count
27 as a “strike” against the prisoner plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which could impair
28 Plaintiff’s ability to bring civil rights claims in the future. Due to these differences and the
1 disadvantages that recharacterization may have on Petitioner’s claims, the undersigned finds that
2 it would be inappropriate automatically to convert the habeas petition as a civil rights complaint
3 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This conclusion, however, does not preclude Petitioner from pursuing
4 his claims in a properly filed civil action pursuant to § 1983 should he so choose.
5 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends the Petition be dismissed for lack of federal
6 habeas jurisdiction.
7 III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
8 State prisoners in a habeas corpus action under § 2254 do not have an automatic right to
9 appeal a final order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36
10 (2003). To appeal, a prisoner must obtain a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);
11 see also R. Governing Section 2254 Cases 11 (requires a district court to issue or deny a
12 certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner); Ninth Circuit Rule
13 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). Where, as here, the court
14 denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the underlying
15 constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability only “if jurists of reason
16 would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
17 right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
18 procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar
19 is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist
20 could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the
21 petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. Here, reasonable jurists would not find the
22 undersigned’s conclusion debatable or conclude that petitioner should proceed further. The
23 undersigned therefore recommends that a certificate of appealability not issue.
24 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
25 1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) be GRANTED.
26 2. The First Amended Petition (Doc No. 9) be dismissed for lack of federal habeas
27 jurisdiction.
28 3. Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability.
1 4. The Clerk of Court be directed to send Petitioner a blank civil rights complaint form.
2 NOTICE TO PARTIES
3 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge
4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days
5 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written objections
6 | with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
7 | Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
8 | result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)
9 | (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
10
Dated: _ November 1, 2023 Gow ZA. Bareh Zack
12 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28