Case 2:22-cv-03559-JAK-JDE Document 3 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 HERBERT JOHNSON, ) Case No. 2:22-cv-03559-JAK-JDE ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING ) 13 v. ) PETITION ) 14 WARDEN R. J. DONOVAN, ) ) 15 Respondent. ) 16 17 On May 23, 2022, Petitioner Herbert Johnson (“Petitioner”), a 18 California state prisoner, proceeding pro se and without paying the required 19 filing fee or seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed a “Petition for 20 Writ of Habeas Corpus” using a state court form, challenging various 21 conditions of his confinement while incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 22 Correctional Facility (“RJD”). Dkt. 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). 23 Pursuant to Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 24 States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), the Court is required to review the 25 Petition and, if it plainly appears from the Petition and any attached exhibits 26 that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court must dismiss the Petition. 27 For the reasons set forth below, as it plainly appears from the Petition 28 that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court dismisses the Petition. Case 2:22-cv-03559-JAK-JDE Document 3 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:21

1 I. 2 PETITIONER’S GROUNDS FOR RELIEF 3 Petitioner asserts multiple grounds for relief. First, he appears to allege 4 he filed a state writ of habeas corpus against RJD because “[a]ll mail block[ed] 5 to [San] Diego courts.” Pet. at 3. Second, Petitioner alleges he received two 6 stimulus checks that were posted to his prison trust account, but staff at RJD 7 deducted money from these stimulus payments even though they are exempt 8 from “an obligation imposed on others.” Id. Third, he vaguely alleges that he 9 was “beaten 2x by RJD, place[d] in kitchen job were weed and cell phones, 10 written up for not going 5x[;] damn hernia operation.” Id. at 4. 11 II. 12 DISCUSSION 13 “Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to 14 imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint 15 under the Civil Rights Act . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 16 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam). “Challenges to the validity of any 17 confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas 18 corpus; requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be 19 presented in a § 1983 action.” Id. (internal citation omitted). “[T]he essence of 20 habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 21 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from 22 illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). The “core of 23 habeas corpus” is an attack on “the fact or duration of his confinement,” in 24 which a prisoner “seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the 25 shortening of its duration.” Id. at 489. In the Ninth Circuit, “if a state 26 prisoner’s claim does not lie at ‘the core of habeas corpus,’ it may not be 27 brought in habeas corpus but must be brought, ‘if at all,’ under § 1983.” Nettles 28 v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser, 411 2 Case 2:22-cv-03559-JAK-JDE Document 3 Filed 06/23/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:22

1 U.S. at 487; Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n.13 (2011)). Therefore, if 2 success on Petitioner’s claims “would not necessarily lead to his immediate or 3 earlier release from confinement,” his claims do not fall within “the core of 4 habeas corpus,” and he must instead bring his claims under Section 1983. Id. 5 at 935 (quoting Skinner, 562 U.S. at 535 n.13). 6 Here, all of Petitioner’s claims implicate conditions of his confinement. 7 Success on these claims would not result in an immediate or speedier release 8 from custody. As such, these claims do not fall within “the core of habeas 9 corpus” and Petitioner must instead pursue these claims, if at all, in a Section 10 1983 action. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 933 (explaining that “prisoners may not 11 challenge mere conditions of confinement in habeas corpus”); see also Nelson 12 v. “SB” of Or. State Hosp., 744 F. App’x 451, 452 (9th Cir. 2018) (claims 13 regarding interference with mail did not fall within the core of habeas corpus); 14 Pokras v. Lancaster State Prison, 2021 WL 425985, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 15 2021) (claim based on restitution fine, whether challenging the fine itself or its 16 enforcement, does not lie at the core of habeas corpus); Chester v. Carr, 2018 17 WL 5862823, at *7-8 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2018) (claim regarding interference 18 with mail was not cognizable on federal habeas review); Olic v. HDSP 19 Warden, 2018 WL 1620896, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) (claim of excessive 20 force was not cognizable on federal habeas review), report and 21 recommendation accepted by 2018 WL 1620907 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2018). 22 Additionally, although the Ninth Circuit in Nettles recognized that a 23 district court may construe a habeas petition to plead a civil rights claim after 24 notifying the prisoner and obtaining his informed consent, 830 F.3d at 935-36, 25 converting the Petition into a federal civil rights action is not appropriate in 26 this case. First, prisoner civil rights actions are subject to different requirements 27 (and higher filing fees) than are federal habeas proceedings. One district court 28 has found that Petitioner suffered three or more “strikes” within the meaning 3 Case 2:22-cv-03559-JAK-JDE Document 3 Filed 06/23/22 Page4of4 Page ID#:23

1 || of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and must therefore meet certain conditions before he 2 ||may proceed in forma pauperis. See Johnson v. Paramo, et al., Case No. 3:16- 3 || cv-00723-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal. 2016), Dkt. 5. As the fee for filing a habeas 4 || action in this district is $5, compared to the $400 civil and administrative filing 5 ||fees for a civil action, Petitioner may have intentionally filed this action as a 6 || habeas petition to avoid the higher fee. Second, the Petition is not amenable to 7 ||conversion as it does not name the proper defendants. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 8 || 936 (in order to be converted, petition must be “‘amenable to conversion on its 9 || face, meaning that it names the correct defendants and seeks the correct 10 || relief.’”). Third, venue over any such civil rights action would not properly lie 11 ||in this district as all the alleged events took place in the Southern District of 12 || California, where RJD is located. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Fiorito v. Entzel, 13 ||829 F. App’x 192, 194 (9th Cir. 2020) (wrong venue is a valid and reasonable 14 || basis for declining to convert a habeas petition). 15 Ii. 16 ORDER 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, 18 |/this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice and judgment be entered 19 || accordingly. Dated: June 23,2022 C) Wn NW 22 JOHN A. KRONSTADT 23 United States District Judge 74 Presented By; 25 hie Ae: 2G %6 J ; D. EARLY nited States Magistrate Judge 27 28