Ferguson v. Noonan

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 18, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00498
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICHOLAS FERGUSON, Case No.: 03:23-cv-0498-RBM-BLM #24645298 12 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION Petitioner, 13 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 14 E. NOONAN, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17

18 On Mach 17, 2023, Petitioner Nicholas Ferguson (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for 19 Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). (Doc. 1.) Petitioner raises two grounds for relief: (1) 20 Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and (2) “[d]enied 21 rights to medical treatment.” (Doc. 1 at 6.) Under both grounds for relief, Petitioner 22 contends the doctors and administrative staff at Western Region Detention Facility – San 23 Diego (“WRDF”) denied Petitioner “previously prescribed chronos and medication.” (Id.) 24 For the reasons discussed below, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, if it plainly appears from 27 the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, “the court 28 must summarily dismiss the petition without ordering a responsive pleading.” Mayle v. 1 Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 641, n.1 2 (9th Cir. 2002). Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, a federal court shall entertain an 3 application for writ of habeas corpus “only on the ground that [the petitioner] is in custody 4 in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 5 2254(a). Habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for challenging the legality 6 or duration of confinement while a civil rights action is the proper method to challenge 7 conditions of confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 The Court has screened the instant Petition and finds it clear on its face that Petitioner 10 is not entitled to federal habeas relief. As previously mentioned, habeas corpus 11 proceedings are the proper mechanism for challenging the legality or duration of 12 confinement while a civil rights action is the proper method to challenge conditions of 13 confinement. See Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; see also Wilson v. Ponce, 465 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 14 1047 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (“a challenge to conditions of confinement are generally brought 15 pursuant to a civil rights statute, such as § 1983 or Bivens”); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 16 749, 750 (2004) (“[c]hallenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting 17 its duration are the province of habeas corpus . . . requests for relief turning on 18 circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action”). 19 Both of Petitioner’s grounds for relief appear to be Eighth Amendment cruel and 20 unusual punishment claims alleging the doctors and administrative staff at WRDF denied 21 Petitioner “previously prescribed chronos and medication.” (Doc. 1 at 6.) Thus, Petitioner 22 appears to be solely challenging the conditions of his confinement in the facility in which 23 he was incarcerated, and a habeas petition is the improper means to bring such challenge. 24 See Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Muhammad, 540 U.S. at 750. Absent any challenge to the 25 legality or duration of Petitioner’s confinement, the Petition fails to state a cognizable claim 26 for federal habeas relief. See Rushing v. California Inst. for Men, No. 2:20-07737 AB 27 (ADS), 2020 WL 8614226, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2020) (summarily dismissing petition 28 1 || for writ of habeas corpus “[b]ecause Petitioner does not appear to challenge the legality or 2 || duration of his confinement’). 3 HI. CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || DATE: May 18, 2023 i eee tg HON. RUTH BERMUBEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28