Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Edelbacher v. California Board of Parole Hearings

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 5, 2017

PETER T. EDELBACHER, Petitioner,
v.
CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, Respondent.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO CONVERT PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

         Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

         I.

         BACKGROUND

         Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. On January 10, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1). On May 4, 2017, the petition was transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 9). In the petition, Petitioner is challenging the Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) denying him consideration for release under the Elder Parole Program. (ECF No. 1 at 5).[1]

         II.

         DISCUSSION

         Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered to file a response if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”

         A. Federal Habeas Jurisdiction

         By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A claim falls within the “core of habeas corpus” when a prisoner challenges “the fact or duration of his confinement” and “seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the shortening of its duration.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). The Ninth Circuit has adopted a rule that a “state prisoner's claim [that] does not lie at ‘the core of habeas corpus' . . . must be brought, ‘if at all, ' under § 1983.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487; Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n.13 (2011)). Therefore, if “success on [Petitioner]'s claims would not necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement, [Petitioner]'s claim does not fall within ‘the core of habeas corpus, ' and he must instead bring his claim under § 1983.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935 (quoting Skinner, 562 U.S at 535 n.13).

         Here, Petitioner asserts that the Board improperly denied Petitioner consideration for release under the Elder Parole Program and appears to be seeking a court order for the Board to schedule and hold a parole suitability hearing. (ECF No. 1 at 5, 19). However, success on Petitioner's claim would not necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935 (noting that under California law, the parole board must consider all relevant reliable information in determining suitability for parole and has the authority to deny parole on the basis of any grounds presently available to it). Based on the foregoing, Petitioner's claim is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus.

         B. Conversion to § 1983 Civil Rights Action

         Petitioner may convert his petition to a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (“If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it names the correct defendants and seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so long as it warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an opportunity for the litigant to withdraw or amend his or her complaint.”) (quoting Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)). The Court notes, however, that habeas corpus and prisoner civil rights actions differ in a variety of respects, such as the proper defendants, filing fees, exhaustion requirements, and restrictions on future filings (e.g., the Prison Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes rule). Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (citing Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 839, 841 (7th Cir. 2011); Glaus, 408 F.3d at 388).

         If Petitioner chooses to convert the instant matter to a civil rights action, the filing fee for § 1983 civil rights cases is $350. Petitioner is required to pay the full amount by way of deductions from income to Petitioner's trust account, even if granted in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).[2]

         Petitioner also may, at his option, voluntarily dismiss his habeas petition without prejudice to refiling his claims as a § 1983 civil rights action. However, Petitioner is forewarned that dismissal and refiling may subject Petitioner to a possible ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.