1 2

3

4 5 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 10 FLOYD DEWAINE SCOTT, Case No. CV 20-3682-JVS (KK) 11 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

12 v.

13 COMPTON SUPERIOR COURT,

14 Respondent.

15 16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 Petitioner Floyd Dewaine Scott (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of 20 Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. On April 24, 21 2020, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why this Action Should Not Be 22 Summarily Dismissed for Failure to State a Cognizable Habeas Claim. Dkt. 5. For 23 the reasons discussed below, the Court summarily DISMISSES this action with 24 prejudice. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 II. 2 SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 3 On April 13, 2020, Petitioner, an inmate at California State Prison – Los 4 Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”), constructively filed1 a pro se Petition for Writ of 5 Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Section 2254”). See Dkt. 6 1, Pet. Petitioner challenges the restitution fine imposed as a result of his criminal 7 conviction. Id. Petitioner argues the failure to hold an “ability to pay determination 8 hearing” before ordering restitution violated his due process rights. Id. 9 On April 24, 2020, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why this Action 10 Should Not Be Summarily Dismissed for Failure to State a Cognizable Habeas Claim 11 (“OSC”). Dkt. 5. The OSC instructed Petitioner to (a) “[f]ile a written response 12 explaining why Petitioner’s claims are cognizable on habeas review,” or (b) “request a 13 voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).” 14 Id. at 3. 15 On May 13, 2020, Petitioner constructively filed a Response to the OSC. Dkt. 16 8. Petitioner argues the superior court’s “failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on 17 [his] ability to pay restitutional fines prior to issuing an order to collect funds from 18 [Petitioner’s] constitutionally protected inmate trust account” violates due process and 19 his claims “are cognizable per law.” Id. at 7. 20 The matter thus stands submitted. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26

27 1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 THE PETITION IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL 4 FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 5 A. APPLICABLE LAW 6 Under Section 2254, “a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of 7 habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 8 court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws 9 or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). “Challenges to the validity of 10 any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas 11 corpus; requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented 12 in” an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). Muhammad v. 13 Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750, 124 S. Ct. 1303, 158 L. Ed. 2d 32 (2004) (citations omitted). 14 Section 2254(a) uses the term “in custody” twice, with two different 15 requirements. Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010). The first usage (i.e., 16 that the petition be filed “in behalf of a person in custody”) requires that the 17 petitioner is “under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is 18 filed.” Id. at 978-79, 983 n.6 (quoting Resendiz v. Kovensky, 416 F.3d 952, 956 (9th 19 Cir. 2005)). The second usage (i.e., that the application may be entertained “only on 20 the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of 21 the United States”) requires “a nexus between the petitioner’s claim and the unlawful 22 nature of the custody.” Id. at 978-80. “[W]hen a prisoner’s claim would not 23 necessarily spell speedier release, that claim does not lie at the core of habeas corpus 24 and may be brought, if at all, under § 1983.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 25 n.13, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 179 L. Ed. 2d 233 (2011) (citations and internal quotation marks 26 omitted); see also Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481-83 (1994). Thus, a challenge 27 to a non-custodial component of a sentence, i.e., a restitution fine, does not suffice to 1 |B. ANALYSIS 2 Here, Petitioner challenges his restitution fine, and requests an “ability to pay” 3 | hearing or that the restitution fine be reversed and removed. Dkt. 1 at 14. 4 Petitioner’s claim challenging his restitution fine, however, does not “call into 5 | question the lawfulness of the conviction or confinement],|” challenge the fact or 6 | duration of his custody, or “‘seek[ | immediate or speedier release.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 7 | 481-83. Petitioner’s claim is, therefore, not cognizable under Section 2254. Bailey, 8 | 599 F.3d at 978; Phillips v. Sherman, No. 5:19-CV-01772-CBM (SH\W), 2019 WL 9 | 6620488, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 10 | WL 6618930 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019) (finding petitioner failed to state a cognizable 11 | claim for habeas relief where his requested relief was a modification of his restitution 12 | fines). 13 IV. 14 ORDER 15 Accordingly, this Court ORDERS Judgment be entered summarily 16 | DISMISSING this action with prejudice.

18 Ree VJ 19 | Dated: May 28, 2020 Y ff 20 “HONORABLE JAMES V.SELNA > United States District Judge 22. | Presented by: 23 24 »5 | Kenny

HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO

26 | United States Magistrate Judge 27 28