United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
October 4, 2019, William Allen Garrett
(“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding
pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
("Petition"). Petitioner claims that his
constitutional rights were violated in connection with a
September 2019 incident that resulted in his placement in
administrative segregation pending the outcome of a prison
disciplinary hearing. (See Petition at 2, 6-7,
11-12, 14-19.) Petitioner claims that the
“cumulative effect of the constitutional violations
has caused [him] mental and physical stress.”
(Id. at 12-13.) He seeks, inter alia, money
damages and to have the rules violation dismissed and removed
from his prisoner file. (Id. at 7, 13.)
forth below, the Petition fails to state a cognizable habeas
claim and should be dismissed without prejudice.
Duty to Screen Habeas Petitions
Court has a duty to screen habeas corpus petitions.
See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes. Rule
4 requires a district court to examine a habeas corpus
petition, and if it plainly appears from the face of the
petition and any annexed exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief, the judge shall make an order for summary
dismissal of the petition. Id.; see also
Local Rule 72-3.2. The notes to Rule 4 state: “‘a
dismissal may be called for on procedural grounds, which may
avoid burdening the respondent with the necessity of filing
an answer on the substantive merits of the
petition.'” See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d
1124, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 1998); White v. Lewis, 874
F.2d 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989).
The Petition Should Be Dismissed for Failure to State a
Cognizable Habeas Claim
challenges the issuance of a rules violation report against
him and his placement in administrative segregation pending
the outcome of a prison disciplinary hearing. (See
Petition at 2, 6-7, 11-19.) Specifically, he seeks the
following remedies: (1) “issue a prohibitive order
restrain[in]g defendant from using punishment to intimidate
or coerce petitioner from going through the trash, (2) to
issue an order to dis[miss] or reissue the 115 for battery [,
] (3) return to whole and reinstate petitioner status [quo]
[, ] and (4) award monetary damages for cumulative effect
of violation to petitioner['s] constitutional right to be
free from discriminatory perse[cution] for a mental
illness.” (Petition at 7.) He also seeks to have the
rules violation charge against him dismissed and removed from
his prisoner file. (Id. at 13.) Petitioner's
claims are not properly brought in a habeas petition because
he does not challenge the fact or duration of his
district court will entertain a habeas petition “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).
“‘Challenges to the validity of any confinement
or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of
habeas corpus.'” Hill v. McDonough, 547
U.S. 574, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540
U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam)). Habeas corpus “is
the exclusive remedy . . . for the prisoner who seeks
‘immediate or speedier release' from
confinement.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S.
521, 525 (2011) (citation omitted). A challenge to the fact
or duration of confinement that would, if successful, result
in immediate or speedier release falls within the
“core” of habeas corpus. Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-89 (1973). A civil rights
action - not a habeas action - is the exclusive vehicle for a
state prisoner's claim that does not fall within this
“core.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d
922, 927-31 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). When success on a
prisoner's claims “would not necessarily lead to
his immediate or earlier release from confinement, ”
such claims do not fall within “the core of habeas
corpus[.]” Id. at 935 (citation omitted).
face of the Petition, it is clear that success on
Petitioner's claims regarding the rules violation report
and placement in administrative segregation would not
necessarily entitle him to an accelerated release from
confinement. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935 (challenge
to validity of disciplinary hearing that led to rules
violation report not cognizable on federal habeas review
notwithstanding alleged impact on parole determination);
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 855, 859 (9th Cir.
2003) (“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent . . . where a
successful challenge to a prison condition will not
necessarily shorten the prisoner's sentence.”).
Accordingly, Petitioner's claims are not cognizable on
federal habeas review.
to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, the
Court “must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
applicant.” The Court has found that the Petition
should be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, the Court
concludes that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right, as is required to
support the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is dismissed without
prejudice; and (2) a ...