In re Daryl Armstead, No. 2:2010cv05291 - Document 4 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge Cormac J. Carney. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the habeas petition. (See Order for details.) (mp)

Download PDF
In re Daryl Armstead Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 In re Daryl Armstead, NO. CV 10-5291-CJC (AGR) 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 I. 19 SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 12 Petitioner. 13 14 15 16 20 OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS On July 19, 2010, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 21 Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. According to Petitioner, 22 in August 2007, he was deprived of his personal property while housed at 23 Chuckawalla Valley State Prison. (Petition, Memo at 2.) He filed a state tort 24 claim on April 8, 2009, after earlier attempting to file a 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 civil 25 suit of October 6, 2008. (Id. at 3.)1 However, the California court denied 26 27 28 1 On September 17, 2008, Petitioner filed a request to proceed without prepayment of filing fees in this Court and on September 22, 2008, lodged a civil rights complaint in Armstead v. Kelley, Case No. CV 08-1275-UA-AGR (C.D. Cal.). On October 6, 2008, the District Court denied the request because Dockets.Justia.com 1 Petitioner s request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.) Petitioner filed an 2 application for a writ with the California Court of Appeal but was denied. (Id. at 1- 3 2.) He filed an application for a writ with the California Supreme Court but was 4 denied. (Id. at 2.) He claims here that the California courts denials of his request 5 to proceed in forma pauperis violated his First Amendment right of access to the 6 courts, his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, and his Fourteenth 7 Amendment right to equal protection. (Petition at 5-6.) 8 II. 9 DISCUSSION 10 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 11 District Courts provides that [i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . 12 that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must 13 dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. See also 14 Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 15 Summary dismissal is appropriate here because Petitioner s claims are not 16 cognizable under habeas. See Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 17 1983). As Petitioner himself concedes, he does not challenge his conviction or 18 sentence. (Petition at 2.) His alleged constitutional violations would not affect the 19 length of his confinement or the lawfulness of his conviction. [W]hen a state 20 prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and 21 the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a 22 speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of 23 habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. 24 Ed. 2d 439 (1973); see also Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979) 25 ( [T]he writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon the legality or duration of 26 confinement. ); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 27 28 Petitioner failed to state a claim. (Armstead v. Kelley, Dkt. No. 2.) 2 1 III. 2 ORDER 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily 4 dismissing the habeas petition. 5 6 _______________________________ CORMAC J. CARNEY United States District Judge DATED: July 27, 2010 7 8 9 Presented by: 10 11 12 __________________________ ALICIA G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.