David Sabino Quair III v. Mona Houston

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID SABINO QUAIR, III, Case No. 5:19-01650PSG (ADS) 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 13 MONA HOUSTON, Warden, CORPUS Respondent. [15] 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 On or about August 29, 2019, Petitioner David Sabino Quair, III, a California 18 state prisoner, filed aPetition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. No. 1]. A review of the 19 pleading and records in this case reveals that Petitionerfails toallegeacognizable claim 20 for federal habeas relief.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court DISMISSES the 21 casewithout prejudice. [22] 23 1Where necessary, the Court takes judicial notice of the public records. SeeFed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2)(“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable 24 dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 1 II. RELEVANT PRIOR HISTORY 2 Onor aboutAugust 10, 2019, Petitionerfileda Petition for Writ of Habeas 3 Corpus. [Dkt.No.1]. Although far from the model of clarity, the Petition raises several 4 claims challengingvarious aspects ofPetitioner’s conditions of confinement. [Id.]. The 5 Petition sets forth five grounds for relief, as follows: 6 1. “Continued deprivation of all civil, constitutional, due process, and 7 prisoner rights;” 8 2. “Misuse of personal identifying information legally and medical 9 justification;” 10 3. “Obstruction of justice and conspiracy to deprive of all human rights;” 11 4. “Failure to protect from harm and cruel and unusual punishment;”and 12 5. “Entrapment of serious rules violations reports by CSP-SQ and CSPCIM 13 CCPOA.” 14 [Dkt. No. 11, pp. 5-6]. 15 Petitioner further alleges, “Obstruction of all mail incoming and outgoing to deny 16 plaintiff due process and equal protection.” [Id., p. 7]. 17 In addition to the instant action, Petitioner has filed fourother federal habeas 18 petitionsand twenty-one federal civil rights actionsin this Court. SeeCase Nos.1919 0058 PSG (ADS); 19-0650 PSG (ADS); 19-0878 PSG (ADS); 19-1188 PSG (ADS); 1820 2595 PSG (ADS); 19-0022 PSG (ADS); 19-0085 PSG (ADS); 19-0087 PSG (ADS); 1921 22 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980)(“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as 23 well as the records of an inferior court in other cases.”); Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012)(holding that a court may take judicial notice of 24 undisputed matters of public record). 1 0093 PSG (ADS); 19-0454 PSG (ADS); 19-0587 PSG (ADS); 19-0607 PSG (ADS); 192 0699 PSG (ADS); 19-0750 PSG (ADS); 19-0768 PSG (ADS); 19-0769 PSG (ADS); 193 0774 PSG (ADS); 19-0776 PSG (ADS); 19-0782 PSG (ADS); 19-0783 PSG (ADS); 194 0786 PSG (ADS); 19-0791 PSG (ADS); 19-1149 PSG (ADS); 19-01397 PSG (ADS); 195 01651PSG (ADS). Furthermore, a search on PACER reveals that Petitioner has multiple 6 federalactions pending in other DistrictsCourtsin California. SeePACER, 7 www.pacer.gov. 8 III. DISCUSSION 9 A. Failure to State a Cognizable Claim 10 The Court has the authority to dismiss habeas actions suasponte. Under Rule 4 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, if it plainly appears from the petition and any 12 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, “the court must summarily 13 dismiss the petition without ordering a responsive pleading.” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 14 644, 656 (2005); seealsoPagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 641,n.1 (9th Cir. 2002) 15 (quoting Rule 4). Summary dismissal of a habeas petition is appropriate where the 16 allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently 17 frivolous or false. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting 18 Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). Under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 , a 19 federal court shallentertain an application for writ of habeas corpus “only on the ground 20 that [the petitioner]is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of 21 the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §2254 (a). Habeas corpus proceedings are the proper 22 mechanism for challenging the legality or duration of confinement while a civil rights 23 action is the proper method to challenge conditions of confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 24 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). 1 Here, theCourt has screened theinstant Petitionand finds itclear on the face of 2 the Petitionthat Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Habeas corpus 3 proceedings are the proper mechanism for challenging the legality or duration of 4 confinement while a civil rights action is the proper method to challenge conditions of 5 confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). Petitioner’s five grounds 6 for relief appear to solely challenge the conditions of his incarceration by asserting 7 claims such as obstruction of due process, failure to protect from harm, and prison 8 staffs’ handling of his mail. [Dkt. No. 1]. Those challenges concern the conditions of his 9 confinement and must be raised in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Because 10 Petitioner does not appear to challenge the legality or duration of his confinement, the 11 Petition fails to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. Furthermore, 12 Petitioner’s grounds for relief challenge conditions of his incarceration by asserting 13 vague and conclusory statements. See[Dkt. No. 1, pp. 5-6] (asserting claims such as 14 “Continued deprivation of all civil, constitution, due process, and prisoner rights”and 15 “Obstruction of justice and conspiracy to deprive of all human rights”). 16 To the extent Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement,the 17 Court has considered whether to construe Petitioner’s allegations as a civil rights 18 complaint. SeeHanson v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 729 (9th Cir. 1974)(“Despite the labeling 19 of his complaint,[the petitioner] was, therefore, entitled to have his action treated as a 20 claim for relief under the Civil Rights Act.”). However, Petitioner has already filed 21 twenty-onecivil rights complaints pursuant to 42U.S.C. § 1983in this Court. SeeCase 22 Nos. 18-2595 PSG (ADS); 19-0022 PSG (ADS); 19-0085 PSG (ADS); 19-0087 PSG 23 (ADS); 19-0093 PSG (ADS); 19-0454 PSG (ADS); 19-0587 PSG (ADS); 19-0607 PSG 24 (ADS); 19-0699 PSG (ADS); 19-0750 PSG (ADS); 19-0768 PSG (ADS); 19-0769 PSG 1 (ADS); 19-0774 PSG (ADS); 19-0776 PSG (ADS); 19-0782 PSG (ADS); 19-0783 PSG 2 (ADS); 19-0786 PSG (ADS); 19-0791 PSG (ADS); 19-1149 PSG (ADS); 19-01397 PSG 3 (ADS); 19-01651 PSG (ADS). Those complaints allege similar claimsregarding 4 Petitioner’s legal filings and medical treatment. Therefore,it is unnecessary to construe 5 the current federal habeas petition as a civil rights complaint. 6 V. CONCLUSION 7 Petitioner has failed to state a claimcognizable under federal habeas relief and 8 has filed multiple civil rights actions asserts these same claims. IT IS THEREFORE 9 ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 10 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 CasesandCentral District of California Local 11 Rule 72-3.2. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. [24] CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 2 In addition, for reasons stated above, the Court finds that Petitioner has not 3 || shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether:” (1) “the petition states a 4 || valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right;” and (2) “the district court was correct 5 its procedural ruling.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Thus, a 6 || certificate of appealability is denied. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ft A En. 9 || Dated: 10-03-19 _ HONORABLE PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ 10 United States District Judge [11] 12 || Presented by: 13 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth _ HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 14 || United States Magistrate Judge