Bratton v. Hedgepath
Filing
8
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/2/11 ORDERING that the petition is DISMISSED with leave granted for petitioner to file an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, within 28 days; Clerk of the Court is directed to re-designate this case as one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and Clerk of the Court is directed to provide petitioner, as plaintiff, with a form for a prisoner civil rights action used in this district.(Dillon, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
RONALD BRATTON,
11
12
13
14
Petitioner,
vs.
A. HEDGPETH, Warden,
Respondent.
15
16
No. CIV S-11-0781 MCE GGH P
ORDER
/
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has purported to file a petition for a
17
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in
18
forma pauperis.
19
Because this case will have to be re-designated as a civil rights action pursuant to
20
42 U.S.C. § 1983 if petitioner, as plaintiff, elects to pursue it, see below, the court will not grant
21
in forma pauperis status and assess a filing fee at this time, although examination of the in forma
22
pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit, because there is a
23
considerable disparity between the filing fee for a civil rights action, $350.00, and one for a
24
habeas corpus petition, $5.00.
25
26
1
Petitioner alleges that CDCR1 officials have affixed fraudulent classification
1
2
points to his classification score in violation of his due process rights and transferred him from a
3
Level II to a Level III custody prison and, subsequently, to a Level IV, despite exemplary conduct
4
on his part. Petition, pp. 3, 11. Petitioner claims this higher custody designation is illegal and in
5
retaliation for petitioner having exercised his constitutionally protected right to file civil lawsuits
6
challenging unlawful conditions of confinement when petitioner refused to move to a Level II
7
dorm because of his CCCMS status. Id. at 3.
8
9
Petitioner alleges that defendants, the prison warden, the director of the CDCR
and the Unit III classification committee, have placed him at a higher level of security placement
tit.xv, § 3375.22 “execution style/type murder” adding points for
10
under CAL. CODE
11
“administrative reasons” without due process of law. Petition, p. 4. Petitioner brings this
12
putative habeas petition challenging 1) the procedure for adding points to petitioner’s
13
classification score; 2) the conditions of confinement at a higher level of custody as cruel and
14
unusual punishment; 3) defendants’ interpretation of CAL. CODE
15
to “execution style/type murder”; 4) discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause and
16
retaliation for having filed a complaint. Petition, pp. 4, 11. The fourth ground appears to be a
17
combination of two different claims and, although petitioner does not frame it as a separate
18
ground, he appears to be seeking to bring a claim of denial of his right of access to the courts
19
also. Id. at 4. Petitioner seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and possibly monetary damages.
20
Petition, p. 14.
21
R EGS .
R EGS .
tit.xv, § 3375.2 with regard
Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related
to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2254,
and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat.
1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1983. Challenges to the validity of
22
23
24
1
25
2
26
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
This regulation, entitled “Administrative Determinants” allows for an inmate’s being
“housed in a facility with a security level which is not consistent with the inmate’s placement score”
if the inmate meets one or more of a number of listed conditions.
2
1
any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the
province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); requests for relief
turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a
1983 action.
2
3
4
Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749, 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004) (per curiam).
5
See also, Ross v. Woodford, 2007 WL 1589544 (E.D. Cal. June 1, 2007) (petitioner challenging
6
CDCR classification system who maintains his classification history entitles him to be
7
transferred from a Level IV to Level III custody prison challenges the conditions of his
8
confinement is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus and may only proceed by way of 42 U.S.C.
9
§ 1983); Boyd v. Uribe, 2010 WL 3169586 (S.D. Cal. June 8. 2010)(petitioner’s challenge to his
10
reclassification from custody Level II to Level III does not implicate the legality or duration of
11
his state court conviction and does not state a valid claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254)3; Chaney
12
v. Kramer, 2010 WL 2991515 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2010)(dismissing petitioner’s claim that prison
13
classification committee elevated his prison placement score improperly placing him in a Level
14
III facility and seeking a decrease in placement score because this claim does not thereby frame a
15
claim affecting the fact or duration of imprisonment).
16
The petition will be dismissed but petitioner will be granted leave to file a civil
17
rights complaint. If petitioner, as plaintiff, chooses to file a complaint, plaintiff must
18
demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional
19
rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in
20
specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C.
21
§ 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the
22
claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633
23
F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
24
Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations
25
3
26
This report and recommendation was adopted by order filed on August 11, 2010, see 2010
WL 3169584 (S.D. Cal. 2010).
3
1
are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
2
In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in
3
order to make plaintiff’s amended filing complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended
4
pleading be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a
5
general rule, an amended pleading supersedes the original. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57
6
(9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended pleading, the original pleading no longer serves
7
any function in the case. Therefore, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be
8
sufficiently alleged.
9
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
10
1. The petition is dismissed with leave granted for petitioner to file an action
11
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, within twenty-eight days; should petitioner, as plaintiff, fail to file
12
a complaint, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action;
13
14
2. A ruling upon petitioner’s application to proceed in this matter will be
withheld until such time as a complaint in this action may be timely filed;
15
16
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-designate this case as one brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and
17
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide petitioner, as plaintiff, with a
18
form for a prisoner civil rights action used in this district.
19
DATED: June 2, 2011
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
20
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
GGH:009
brat0781.b
23
24
25
26
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
