(HC) Chavez v. Rackley, No. 2:2015cv00631 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 1/28/2016 RECOMMENDING that respondent's 9 motion to dismiss be granted and that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF

(HC) Chavez v. Rackley Doc. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RENE CHAVEZ, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:15-CV-0631-TLN-CMK-P vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RONALD RACKLEY, 15 Respondent. 16 / 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s motion to 19 dismiss (Doc. 9). 20 Petitioner claims that, on August 5, 2013, he was charged with a rules violation 21 arising from an incident occurring on August 2, 2013. According to petitioner, he was charged 22 with possession of contraband discovered in his cell. Following a hearing, petitioner was found 23 guilty of the rules violation and was assessed with a loss of good-time credits. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In his motion to dismiss, respondent argues, among other things, that petitioner 2 fails to state any claims cognizable under § 2254 because his claims do not relate to either the 3 fact or duration of petitioner’s confinement. When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his 4 custody – either the fact of confinement or the duration of confinement – and the relief he seeks 5 is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is 6 cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser v. 7 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 8 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Where a 9 prisoner challenges the conditions of confinement, as opposed to the fact or duration of 10 confinement, his remedy lies in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Rizzo v. 11 Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 12 1298-99 n.13 (2011) (stating that “. . .when a prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily spell 13 speedier release,’ that claim does not lie at ‘the core of habeas corpus’ and may be brought, if at 14 all, under § 1983"). Any claim that does not necessarily shorten an inmate’s incarceration, if 15 successful, falls outside the scope of habeas jurisdiction. See Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1151, 16 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Wilkerson v. Wheeler, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 6435496 (9th 17 Cir. 2014) (discussing loss of good-time credits); Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 18 2015) (discussing loss of good-time credits). Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cannot be used to 19 challenge the conditions of confinement, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be used to challenge the 20 fact or duration of confinement. 21 In this case, as in Nettles, petitioner is serving an indeterminate life sentence with 22 the possibility of parole. As in Nettles, the loss of good-time credits only affects the length of 23 petitioner’s confinement if and when he is found suitable for parole. As respondent notes, 24 petitioner’s claims are not cognizable because he has not been found suitable for parole. The 25 court agrees. While it is possible that the loss of good-time credit may result in lengthier 26 confinement if petitioner is found suitable for parole, at this time success on the merits of his 2 1 claims and restoration of good-time credits will not necessarily spell speedier release. See 2 Skinner, 131 S.Ct. at 1298-99 n.13. 3 4 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) be granted and that this action be dismissed. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 6 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 7 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 8 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 9 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 10 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 12 13 14 DATED: January 28, 2016 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.