Michael Grimes v. Warden, No. 5:2017cv02140 - Document 3 (C.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This Order is without prejudice to the Petitioner's ability to file the Petition as a First Amended Complaint in his pending civil rights action, Grimes v. Beard, EDCV 15-2267 ODW (AGR). (See Order for Further Details) (kl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Michael Grimes v. Warden Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL GRIMES, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 15 v. WARDEN, Respondent. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. EDCV 17-2140-ODW (AGR) OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS On October 18, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 (“Petition”). Because Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable in habeas under 20 Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. denied, 137 S. 21 Ct. 645 (2017), the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition. This Order is 22 without prejudice to Petitioner’s ability to file the Petition as a First Amended 23 Complaint in his pending civil rights case on the same issues, Grimes v. Beard, 24 EDCV 15-2267 ODW (AGR). 25 I. 26 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 27 28 Petitioner is currently confined in Coalinga State Hospital. (Petition at 1.) According to his attachments, Petitioner is awaiting trial in Case No. Dockets.Justia.com 1 FELJS1600148 on a petition to deem him a sexually violent predator pursuant to 2 Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600. (Id. at 64.)1 3 Grounds One, Two and Three of the Petition challenge a rules violation he 4 incurred while incarcerated at California Institute for Men (“CIM”). He appears to 5 challenge the prison’s policy of requiring him to self-catheterize to provide a 6 urine sample for random drug testing (a non-medical reason). His refusal to do 7 so apparently resulted in a rules violation for refusing to provide a urine sample. 8 Ground Four challenges a parole requirement that he attend AA or NA meetings. 9 II. 10 DISCUSSION In the en banc decision in Nettles, the Ninth Circuit held that habeas is the 11 12 exclusive vehicle for state prisoner claims if success on those claims would 13 necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration. A civil 14 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “is the exclusive vehicle for claims brought 15 by state prisoners that are not within the core of habeas corpus.” Nettles, 830 16 F.3d at 927. Thus, “[i]f the prisoner’s claim challenges the fact or duration of the 17 conviction or sentence, compliance with AEDPA is mandated, while if the claim 18 challenges any other aspect of prison life, the prisoner must comply with the 19 PLRA.” Id. at 934 (footnote omitted). Success on Petitioner’s claims would not necessarily lead to his 20 21 immediate or earlier release date from confinement. Petitioner is no longer 22 incarcerated at CIM, where he suffered the rules violation. He is currently at 23 Coalinga awaiting trial on a petition under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600. 24 Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims to do not fall within the core of habeas corpus 25 and this court does not have habeas jurisdiction. Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935. 26 27 28 1 Page citation are to the page numbers assigned by the CM/ECF system in the header. 2 1 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 2 Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any 3 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the 4 judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” 5 Here, summary dismissal is warranted. In Nettles, the court held that “a 6 district court may construe a petition for habeas corpus to plead a cause of 7 action under § 1983 after notifying and obtaining informed consent from the 8 prisoner” and providing “an opportunity for the litigant to withdraw or amend his 9 or her complaint.” Id. at 936. Petitioner, however, previously filed a civil rights 10 complaint under § 1983 with the same claims, and has already been given leave 11 to file a First Amended Complaint in Grimes v. Beard, EDCV 15-2267 ODW 12 (AGR). Construction of the Petition as a civil rights complaint would create a 13 wholly unnecessary and duplicative action. 14 III. 15 ORDER 16 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily 17 dismissing the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This 18 Order is without prejudice to the Petitioner’s ability to file the Petition as a First 19 Amended Complaint in his pending civil rights action, Grimes v. Beard, EDCV 20 15-2267 ODW (AGR). 21 22 23 DATED: October 26, 2017 OTIS D. WRIGHT II United States District Judge 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.
