(HC) Church v. Anglea, No. 1:2018cv01408 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS that the Court Dismiss the Petition for Failure to State a Claim Cognizable in Habeas Corpus; COURT CLERK to Assign District Judge - CASE ASSIGNED to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. New Case No. 1:18-cv-01408 DAD SKO (HC) 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/30/2018. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACK CHURCH, 12 13 No. 1:18-cv-01408-SKO HC Petitioner, v. 14 HUNTER ANGLEA, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COURT DISMISS THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM COGNIZABLE IN HABEAS CORPUS COURT CLERK TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 (Doc. 1) 19 20 Screening Order 21 22 Petitioner, Jack Church, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 23 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner contends that he was denied his right to an 24 inmate appeal process when “the prison appointed a staff member to review the grievance that was 25 the subject of the grievance itself.” 26 27 28 1 1 I. 2 3 Preliminary Screening Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly 4 appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules 5 6 Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). A 7 petition for writ of habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears 8 that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 9 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 10 11 II. Petition States a Claim Properly Addressed in Proceedings Under § 1983 "Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or 12 13 14 duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of § 1983." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-89 (1973). A 15 federal petition for writ of habeas corpus concerns whether a petitioner is in custody in violation of 16 the Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Challenges to the conditions of prison life are properly 17 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 142 (1991). A plaintiff may 18 not seek both types of relief in a single action. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994); 19 Preiser, 411 U.S. at 498-99 n. 15; Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub 20 21 22 nom Bressman v. Farrier, 498 U.S. 1126 (1991); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 23 Petitioner seeks redress for violations of his inmate appeal process. This claim is in the 24 nature of a civil rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the claim does not concern the fact 25 or duration of petitioner’s confinement. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) 26 27 (“[A] § 1983 action [is] proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”) 28 2 1 Because Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, the Court must recommend 2 dismissing his habeas corpus petition. Petitioner may pursue his claims by filing a civil rights 3 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 4 III. Certificate of Appealability 5 6 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district 7 court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 8 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate 9 of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides: 10 11 (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 the circuit in which the proceeding is held. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 (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 19 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 20 21 22 (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. 24 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issues or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 25 If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability "if 23 26 jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or 27 that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 28 3 1 further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Although the 2 petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate 3 "something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part." 4 Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 5 Reasonable jurists would not find the Court's determination that Petitioner is not entitled to 6 7 pursue federal habeas corpus relief to be debatable or wrong, or conclude that the issues presented 8 required further adjudication. Accordingly, the Court recommends declining to issue a certificate 9 of appealability. 10 IV. 11 Conclusion and Recommendation The undersigned recommends that the Court: (1) dismiss the petition for writ of habeas 12 13 14 corpus since it does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus relief, and (2) decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 15 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C ' 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days 17 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, either party may file written 18 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s 19 Findings and Recommendations.@ Replies to the objections, if any, shall be served and filed within 20 21 fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 22 objections within the specified time may constitute waiver of the right to appeal the District Court's 23 order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 24 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 25 26 The Court Clerk is hereby directed to assign a district judge to this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 Dated: October 30, 2018 /s/ 4 Sheila K. Oberto . 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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.
