(HC) Peralta v. Hermans, No. 1:2006cv01082 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2008)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM, OPINION and ORDER Granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Petitioner's Motion for a Stay 10 , 12 signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/5/08. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Peralta v. Hermans Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) ) D. HERMANS, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ) ___________________________________ ) CION ADONIS PERALTA, 1:06-cv-01082 AWI WMW HC MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A STAY [Doc. 10, 12] 19 20 21 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 22 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is Respondent’s motion to 23 dismiss. 24 25 BACKGROUND In this habeas corpus petition, Petitioner contends that his due process rights have 26 been violated because his prison classification score was improperly calculated by the 27 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). 28 LEGAL STANDARDS Dockets.Justia.com 1 JURISDICTION 2 Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody 3 pursuant to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or 4 laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams 5 v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1504 fn.7 (2000). Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of 6 his rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In addition, the classification 7 challenged arises out of the Corcoran State Prison, which is located within the jurisdiction of 8 this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 2241(d). Accordingly, venue is proper in this court. 9 On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 10 Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after its 11 enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063 (1997), cert. denied, 522 12 U.S. 1008, 118 S.Ct. 586 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997) 13 (quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1107, 14 117 S.Ct. 1114 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 15 S.Ct. 2059 (1997) (holding AEDPA only applicable to cases filed after statute's enactment). 16 The instant petition was filed after the enactment of the AEDPA, thus it is governed by its 17 provisions. 18 STANDARD OF REVIEW 19 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 20 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 21 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 22 The AEDPA altered the standard of review that a federal habeas court must apply 23 with respect to a state prisoner's claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court. 24 Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1518-23 (2000). Under the AEDPA, an application for 25 habeas corpus will not be granted unless the adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision 26 that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal 27 28 2 1 law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;” or “resulted in a decision that 2 was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in 3 the State Court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173 4 (2003) (disapproving of the Ninth Circuit’s approach in Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143 5 (9th Cir. 2000)); Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000). “A federal habeas court 6 may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that 7 the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or 8 incorrectly.” Lockyer, at 1174 (citations omitted). “Rather, that application must be 9 objectively unreasonable.” Id. (citations omitted). 10 While habeas corpus relief is an important instrument to assure that individuals are 11 constitutionally protected, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 887, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3391-3392 12 (1983); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1086 (1969), direct review of a 13 criminal conviction is the primary method for a petitioner to challenge that conviction. 14 Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 633, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1719 (1993). In addition, the 15 state court’s factual determinations must be presumed correct, and the federal court must 16 accept all factual findings made by the state court unless the petitioner can rebut “the 17 presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); 18 Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S.Ct. 1769 (1995); Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 19 116 S.Ct. 457 (1995); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1388 (9th Cir. 1997). 20 DISCUSSION 21 Respondent moves to dismiss this petition on the grounds that Petitioner has failed to 22 state a claim warranting federal habeas corpus relief and that the case is barred by the statute 23 of limitations. Petitioner opposes the motion. Because the court finds Respondent’s first 24 ground to be meritorious, it finds it unnecessary to address the second. 25 26 Respondent contends that this petition should be dismissed because federal habeas corpus relief is not available to address Petitioner’s allegation that the calculation of his 27 28 3 1 classification score violated his right to due process. This court must agree. 2 A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner 3 can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 4 “According to traditional interpretation, the writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon 5 the legality or duration of confinement.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979) 6 citing, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-86 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to 7 Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner’s allegations, however, do not 8 make such attacks. Petitioner’s claims challenge the conditions of his confinement, not the 9 fact or duration of that confinement. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that if his classification 10 score were lower, he could be housed at a level two prison. This change in housing would 11 not alter the fact or duration of Petitioner’s confinement. Thus, his claims are not appropriate 12 for habeas corpus relief. Challenges to the conditions of confinement are more appropriately 13 raised in civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 14 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d at 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979). Examination of 15 Exhibit B to the petition reveals that this was previously explained to Petitioner by the 16 Honorable James V. Selna, in the order of July 14, 2006, dismissing Petitioner’s petition filed 17 in the Central District. 18 On January 8, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion seeking a temporary stay of his action 19 while he is away from his legal materials while testifying at a trial. The court finds no need 20 for such a stay. Petitioner has opposed Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and no further 21 briefing is now possible on the motion. Should Petitioner wish to file a notice of appeal from 22 the judgment in this case, the court will grant him any need extension of time to do so upon a 23 showing of good cause. 24 25 26 Petitioner cannot pursue an appeal in this case without a certificate of appealability. The controlling statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2253, provides as follows: (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for 27 28 4 1 the circuit in which the proceeding is held. (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. (c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from-(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 In the present case, the court finds no denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court 9 will deny a certificate of appealability. 10 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 11 1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED; 2) Petitioner’s motion for a stay is DENIED; 3) This case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 12 13 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; 15 4) A certificate of appealability is DENIED; 5) The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this 16 17 case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: b9ed48 February 5, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
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.
