Cesar Espinoza v. J. Doerer

Case 2:22-cv-09026-CAS-JDE Document 4 Filed 12/19/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:19 [7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 ESPINOZA CESAR, ) Case No. 2:22-cv-09026-CAS-JDE ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ) ) THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 14 WARDEN, et al., ) ) DISMISSED ) [15] Respondents. ) ) [16] 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 On December 12, 2022, the Court received from Espinoza Cesar 20 (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner at FCI II-Victorville II (the “Prison”) 21 proceeding pro se, a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2241 (Dkt.1, “Pet.” or “Petition”), purporting to challenge “Unlawful 23 Conditions and Tortious Acts to which [Petitioner] is being Exposed to while 24 Serving a Federal Sentence at THE F.C.I. II.” Pet., ¶ 5. The Petition purports 25 to challenge actions that took place on November 28 and 29, 2022; Petitioner 26 has not filed a grievance or sought an administrative remedy regarding the 27 alleged conduct. Pet., ¶¶ 6(d), 7. Petitioner is not challenging his underlying [28] Case 2:22-cv-09026-CAS-JDE Document 4 Filed 12/19/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:20 1 conviction or sentence. Pet., ¶ 10. He asserts four grounds for relief, all relating 2 to actions improper actions that he alleged took place at the Prison, including 3 alleged “Abusive Body Searches” (Ground One), refusal to provide certain 4 BOP forms (Ground Two), “Improper Custodial Interrogations” (Ground 5 Three), and threats of violence if complaints were made (Ground Four), citing 6 various federal statutes and regulations, Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) 7 Program Statements, and, in Ground One, the Eighth Amendment. Pet., ¶ 13. 8 As for relief, Petitioner seeks that the Prison’s “MALADMINISTRATION be 9 Informed of ‘ALL’ The Laws, Rules and Regulations that have been Enacted 10 for them to Follow,” his immediate release, a “CASH GRATUITIES 11 VOUCHER,” and an order that the Prison’s officers “Refrain from further 12 Committing Wrongful Acts Against [Petitioner].” Pet., ¶ 15. 13 A habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the same 14 screening requirements that apply to habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2254. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 16 Courts (“Habeas Rules”), Rule 1(b) (providing that district courts may apply 17 the Habeas Rules to habeas petitions that are not brought under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254). Accordingly, a district court “must promptly examine” the petition 19 and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 20 petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the “judge must dismiss the petition.” 21 Habeas Rule 4; Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005). The Court has 22 reviewed the Petition under Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules and finds the Petition 23 is subject to dismissal for the reasons explained below. 24 II. 25 DISCUSSION 26 “Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to 27 imprisonment”—a petition for habeas corpus and a civil rights complaint. 28 Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam). Relief in the form [2] Case 2:22-cv-09026-CAS-JDE Document 4 Filed 12/19/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:21 1 of a writ of habeas corpus may be granted to a person in custody under the 2 authority of the United States if the petitioner can show that she is “in custody 3 in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 4 U.S.C. § 2241 (c)(1), (3). In general, habeas proceedings provide a forum in 5 which to challenge the “legality or duration” of a prisoner’s confinement. 6 Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979) (as amended); see also 7 Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927, 934 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (habeas is 8 “the exclusive vehicle” for claims that fall within “the core of habeas corpus,” 9 that is, claims challenging “the fact or duration of the conviction or sentence”). 10 By contrast, a civil rights action is the “proper remedy” for a petitioner 11 asserting “a constitutional challenge to the conditions of [her] prison life, but 12 not to the fact or length of [her] custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 , 13 499 (1973); Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) (“[C]onstitutional 14 claims that merely challenge the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement, 15 whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive relief, fall outside of [the] 16 core” of habeas corpus and instead, should be brought as a civil rights action 17 “in the first instance”); Greenhill v. Lappin, 376 F. App’x 757 (9th Cir. 2010) 18 (appropriate remedy for claim related to the conditions of confinement lies in a 19 civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau 20 of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)). Thus, if success on a habeas petitioner’s 21 claim would not necessarily lead to her immediate or earlier release from 22 confinement, the claim does not fall within “the core of habeas corpus” and 23 thus, must be pursued, if at all, in a civil rights action. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 24 935; see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 Here, all grounds for relief in the Petition relate to Petitioner’s conditions 26 of confinement, and success on these claims would not result in an immediate 27 or speedier release from custody, despite the relief sought. See Nettles, 830 28 F.3d at 933 (explaining that “prisoners may not challenge mere conditions of [3] Case 2:22-cv-09026-CAS-JDE Document Filed 12/19/22 Page 4of4 Page ID #:22 1 || confinement in habeas corpus”); Shook v. Apker, 472 F. App’x 702 , 702-03 2 || (9th Cir. 2012) (finding claims on conditions of confinement were properly 3 □□ brought under Bivens despite the relief sought); Stephens v. Cty. of San 4 || Bernardino, 2019 WL 1412123 , at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2019) (concluding 5 ||that conditions of confinement claims must be brought in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 6 || action regardless of the petitioner’s request for release from custody), report 7 ||and recommendation accepted by 2019 WL 1406954 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 8 2019); Crane v. Beard, 2017 WL 1234096 , at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2017) 9 || (finding that retaliation claim challenged the petitioner’s conditions of 10 || confinement and therefore, was not cognizable on federal habeas review). 11 As such, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Petition.’ 12 Il. 13 ORDER 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is subject to dismissal. Petitioner 15 ||is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be 16 || dismissed by filing a written response by no later than thirty (30) days from 17 || the date of this Order which sets forth any valid legal and/or factual reasons 18 || why the Petition should not be dismissed for the foregoing deficiencies. 19 Petitioner is cautioned that a failure to respond timely in compliance 20 || with this Order may result in dismissal for the reasons explained above and for 21 || failure to prosecute and comply with a Court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 22 if KM. 93, || Dated: December 19, 2022 _ eG N D. EARLY 24 United States Magistrate Judge 29 Ih Although a non-cognizable habeas petition may be converted into a civil rights 26 || complaint with the prisoner’s informed consent, Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935-36 , here, 07 conversion is not warranted as a civil rights claim may itself not be cognizable, would impose a higher filing fee upon Petitioner, could involve different 28 || defendants/respondents, and has different exhaustion requirements.