(HC) Barnes v. Starks Company

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01129
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE DESHAWN BARNES, No. 2:25-cv-1129 CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STARKS COMPANY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Examination 20 of the affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this action. Accordingly, leave to 21 proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 As discussed below, the petition should be summarily dismissed. 23 I. GOVERNING STANDARDS 24 This matter is before the Court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules 25 Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas petition if it 26 “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 27 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998) (Congress 28 1 envisioned district courts taking an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas 2 petitions.). 3 A federal court “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a 4 person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 5 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 6 § 2254(a). In order to state a cognizable federal habeas claim, petitioner must allege a violation 7 of “clearly established federal law” -- meaning a violation of a U.S. Supreme Court holding. See 8 White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419 (2014). Habeas relief is not available if a favorable 9 judgment would not “necessarily lead to [a prisoner’s] immediate or earlier release from 10 confinement.” See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016). 11 II. PETITIONER’S CLAIMS 12 The petition is difficult to understand, but petitioner does not claim to challenge the fact or 13 duration of his confinement. Rather, petitioner sues the Starks Company, and states he “needs to 14 be transferred to federal court for an evidentiary hearing on all estates, $800 trillion,” and other 15 tangible items, and seeks “to issue a warrant to Starks Company.” (ECF No. 1 at 3, 4.) Petitioner 16 contends that the “Starks Company ‘Johnny Depp’” violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth 17 Amendments, referencing “search and seizure,” but providing no other specific facts to clarify 18 how those amendments were violated. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 The petition fails to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. As a general rule, a claim 21 that challenges the fact or duration of a prisoner’s confinement should be addressed by filing a 22 habeas corpus petition, while a claim that challenges the conditions of confinement should be 23 addressed by filing a civil rights action. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per 24 curiam). Petitioner does not challenge the fact or duration of his custody, has not alleged a 25 violation of clearly established federal law, and has not shown that success on his claim will lead 26 to his earlier release. Therefore, the Court recommends that the petition be summarily dismissed. 27 IV. LEAVE TO AMEND 28 The Court has considered whether petitioner should be granted leave to file an amended 1 habeas petition, or whether he should be granted leave to file a civil rights complaint. However, 2 for the following reasons, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to grant petitioner leave to 3 amend. 4 First, petitioner has pending in this Court two petitions for writ of habeas corpus 5 challenging issues related to his current confinement in the Amador County Jail: Barnes v. Stone, 6 No. 25-0560 CKD (E.D. Cal.), and Barnes v. Orozco, No. 25-0863 WBS CSK P (E.D. Cal.). 7 Second, the instant petition does not raise any issues concerning the conditions of his 8 confinement in the Amador County Jail. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must 9 demonstrate: (1) the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the 10 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 11 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). It is unclear whether 12 the Starks Company acted under color of state law. Although petitioner mentions constitutional 13 violations, he includes no facts showing how such amendments were violated. Therefore, leave 14 to file a civil rights complaint based on allegations in the current petition is not appropriate. In 15 addition, petitioner has been found to have sustained three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See 16 Barnes v. Lavorato, Jr., No. 2:23-cv-0534 DJC EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023). Thus, before 17 petitioner can proceed with a civil rights complaint in this Court, he must demonstrate he faced 18 imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the complaint. 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). The instant petition does 20 not address imminent danger or make such showing. 21 Finally, petitioner must exhaust his administrative remedies as to any civil rights claim 22 prior to filing in federal court. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) of 1995, “[n]o 23 action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other 24 Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such 25 administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This statutory 26 exhaustion requirement “applies to all inmate suits about prison [or jail] life,” Porter v. Nussle, 27 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner or the relief offered by 28 the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). 1 Overall, because petitioner is barred by § 1915(g), petitioner should decide whether he 2 || wishes to file a civil rights complaint, and may do so only if he can allege facts demonstrating a 3 | violation of his constitutional rights or clearly established law by a defendant acting under color 4 || of state law. For the above reasons, petitioner should not be granted leave to amend, and this 5 || action should be summarily dismissed. 6 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; and 8 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. 9 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus 10 || be summarily dismissed, and this case be terminated. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 13 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 14 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 15 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that 16 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 17 || Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 19 || Dated: May 1, 2025 A aA Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 71 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 || /1/barn1129.dis 23 24 25 26 27 28