United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER (1) SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND ACTION; AND (2) DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF
HONORABLE JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
September 9, 2019, petitioner Chris Carter, a California
state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition
For Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner appears to challenge his
prison security classification and/or access to youth
offender programs within prison (Ground 1), and alleges that
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
("CDCR") has erred in setting a pre-parole hearing
review under California Penal Code section 3041(a)(1) after
the time it should be held (Ground 2).
plainly appears from the face of the Petition that petitioner
is not entitled to federal habeas relief as requested, the
Petition and this action are dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts ("Habeas Rule 4").
appears to be in custody on two separate state convictions: a
2012 conviction from Los Angeles County Superior Court Case
No. BA403730-03 for second degree robbery with gang
enhancements, and a 2013 conviction from San Bernardino
County Superior Court Case No. FV1201622 for second degree
robbery and conspiracy with gang enhancements, for which he
is serving a term of 17 years and four months in state
prison. (Petition at 2). Petitioner reports that he did not
appeal these convictions and has filed no other court
challenges to his convictions. (Petition at 5-6).
district court may dismiss a habeas petition summarily
"[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief in the district court." Habeas Rule 4;
Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127-28 (9th Cir.
1998). Here, dismissal of the Petition and this action
pursuant to Habeas Rule 4 is appropriate.
in Ground 1, petitioner's challenge to his security
classification and/or access to programs within prison is
effectively a challenge to his conditions of confinement.
Habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for
challenging the legality or duration of confinement, while a
civil rights action is the proper method to challenge
conditions of confinement. See Badea v.
Cox. 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (discussing
in Ground 2, petitioner's challenge to the CDCR's
setting of a pre-parole hearing review with the Board of
Parole Hearings at best alleges that the CDCR has violated
state law. Such a claim is not cognizable under Section 2254.
See Estelle v. McGuire. 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991);
Bomn v. Calderon. 59 F.3d 815, 841 (9th Cir. 1995)
(violation of "state law right does not warrant habeas
corpus relief), cert, denied. 516 U.S. 1051 (1996);
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) ("a district court 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
CONCLUSION AND ORDERS
light of the foregoing, summary dismissal of the Petition
pursuant to Habeas Rule 4 is appropriate, because it
"plainly appears" that none of petitioner's
claims warrant relief, nor could they do so with amendment.
THEREFORE ORDERED: (1) the Petition and this action are
dismissed; and (2) the Clerk shall enter judgment
FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied
because petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing
of a denial of a constitutional right and, under the
circumstances, jurists of ...