Horn

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 BRUCE LAMONT FULLER, Case No. 1:25-cv-001330-KES-EPG-HC

10 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF

11 v. HABEAS CORPUS

12 PATWIN HORN,

13 Respondent.

14

15 Petitioner Bruce Lamont Fuller is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for

16 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Given that the petition fails to state a

17 cognizable federal habeas claim, the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed.

18 I.

19 BACKGROUND

20 Petitioner filed an application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C.

21 § 2254 habeas petition in the Ninth Circuit. On September 19, 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied the

22 application. (ECF No. 1.) However, the Ninth Circuit found Petitioner’s supplemental

23 application, which claims Petitioner was denied the right to a fair hearing before the California

24 Board of Parole Hearings, “unnecessary” and ordered the clerk to “transfer the supplemental

25 application at Docket Entry No. 4, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

26 California, to be processed as a § 2254 petition challenging the applicant’s parole proceedings.”

27 (Id. at 1, 2.) On October 7, 2025, the petition was transferred from the Sacramento Division to

the Fresno Division. (ECF No. 4.)

1 II.

2 DISCUSSION

3 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a

4 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered

5 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

6 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254

7 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

8 A. Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction

9 By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in

10 behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he

11 is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

12 § 2254(a). A claim falls within the “core of habeas corpus” when a prisoner challenges “the fact

13 or duration of his confinement” and “seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the

14 shortening of its duration.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). The Ninth Circuit

15 has adopted the rule that a “state prisoner’s claim [that] does not lie at ‘the core of habeas

16 corpus’ . . . must be brought, ‘if at all,’ under § 1983.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934

17 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487; Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521,

18 535 n.13 (2011)). Therefore, if “success on [Petitioner]’s claims would not necessarily lead to his

19 immediate or earlier release from confinement, [Petitioner]’s claim does not fall within ‘the core

20 of habeas corpus,’ and he must instead bring his claim under § 1983.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935

21 (quoting Skinner, 562 U.S. at 535 n.13).

22 In the petition, Petitioner alleges that documents filed in the San Bernardino County

23 Superior Court on February 16, 2022, “somehow never made it to the Court of Appeals. Nor did

24 it make it to the California Board of Parole Hearings.” (ECF No. 2 at 1.) Petitioner asserts that

25 his right to a fair hearing before the Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) “was violated due to

26 these documents not reaching BPH and the Court of Appeals.” (ECF No. 2 at 1.) The Court finds

27 that success on Petitioner’s claims would not necessarily lead to a grant of parole, but rather a

1 2019) (holding that petition asserting Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising from

2 denial of request for early parole would not necessarily result in immediate release from prison

3 but rather entitlement to a new parole hearing). Under California law, the parole board must

4 consider all relevant reliable information in determining suitability for parole and has the

5 authority to deny parole on the basis of any grounds presently available to it. Nettles, 830 F.3d at

6 935. As success on Petitioner’s claims would not necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier

7 release from confinement, these claims do not fall within “the core of habeas corpus,” and thus,

8 are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935. Accordingly, Petitioner

9 has failed to state cognizable claims for federal habeas corpus relief with respect to his claims

10 challenging the fairness of the BPH hearing, and dismissal is warranted on this ground.

11 B. Conversion to § 1983 Civil Rights Action

12 “If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it names the correct

13 defendants and seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so long as it

14 warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an opportunity for

15 the litigant to withdraw or amend his or her complaint.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (quoting Glaus

16 v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)). The Court notes that habeas corpus and

17 prisoner civil rights actions differ in a variety of respects, such as the proper defendants, filing

18 fees, exhaustion requirements, and restrictions on future filings (e.g., the Prison Litigation

19 Reform Act’s three-strikes rule). Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (citing Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d

20 839, 841 (7th Cir. 2011); Glaus, 408 F.3d at 388).

21 Due to these differences and the disadvantages that recharacterization may have on

22 Petitioner’s claims, the undersigned finds that it would be inappropriate to construe the habeas

23 petition as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court notes that the filing fee for

24 § 1983 civil rights cases is $350, and Petitioner is required to pay the full amount by way of

25 deductions from income to Petitioner’s trust account, even if granted in forma pauperis status.

26 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Moreover, the petition names Patwin Horn, the warden at the Kern

27 Valley State Prison, as Respondent and thus, does not name the correct defendant in a civil rights

1 | 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant,

2 | through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”). This conclusion,

3 | however, does not preclude Petitioner from pursuing his claims in a properly filed civil action

4 | brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

5 Il.

6 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER

7 Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of

8 | habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim.

9 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to

10 | the present matter.

11 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

12 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local

13 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

14 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file

15 | written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and

16 | serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

17 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will

18 | then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are

19 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

20 | District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.

21 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

22

73 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24) Dated: _ December 1, 2025 [sl ey

5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26

27

28