DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:23-CV-2885-TLN-CKD Petitioner, v. ORDER AND TOM LOPEZ, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. Petitioner, a state pretrial detainee, is proceeding without counsel in this habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Also pending before the court are petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief as well as the appointment of counsel and a guardian ad litem to represent him in these proceedings. ECF Nos. 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 22, 24, 29. For the reasons explained herein, the undersigned recommends granting respondent’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s habeas application without prejudice to refiling as a civil rights action. I. Factual and Procedural Background Petitioner is a pretrial detainee in county custody who is challenging three felony charges stemming from events that occurred on February 15, 2023.1 At an unspecified point during his state criminal proceedings, a doubt was declared about petitioner’s competency and a psychiatric 1 Petitioner contends that he was charged with escape or attempted escape from jail and two counts of resisting an executive officer by means of threats, force, or violence. evaluation was ordered. As a result, petitioner has been transferred to and from the California Department of State Hospitals. See ECF Nos. 13, 26. In his § 2254 application, petitioner asserts that he was sentenced to serve two years on March 27, 2023. ECF No. 1 at 1. However, Yolo County Superior Court records indicate that a trial has yet to be conducted.2 On May 21, 2025, the state trial court determined that petitioner was competent to stand trial and scheduled his trial to commence on June 23, 2025. See Minute Order (May 21, 2025), available at https://tinyurl.com/m4xknayp. Petitioner raises four claims for relief in his § 2254 petition. First, he asserts that the state court denied him federal benefits and discriminated and retaliated against him by using California Penal Code §§ 1367-1370 as punishment when he tried to refuse medication. ECF No. 1 at 5. In claim two, petitioner asserts that the state court violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. ECF No. 1 at 7. Next, petitioner raises a First Amendment violation asserting that he was denied access to the courts. ECF No. 1 at 8. Lastly, petitioner asserts that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because the state court acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Id. at 10. His last claim for relief also alleges that excessive force was used against him on an unspecified date. Id. Petitioner acknowledges that he has not properly exhausted these claims in state court. ECF No. 1 at 12. However, he submits that the exhaustion of state court remedies should be excused in his case because he is incompetent to stand trial or to represent himself under California Penal Code § 1370. The habeas petition requests various forms of relief including: 1) a declaratory judgment; 2) injunctive relief; 3) the appointment of counsel or a guardian ad litem; 4) compensatory and punitive damages; 5) the termination of the pending criminal case against him; and, 6) a stay of proceedings in order to exhaust his state court remedies. ECF No. 1 at 15, 26. Petitioner also
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:23-CV-2885-TLN-CKD Petitioner, v. ORDER AND TOM LOPEZ, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. Petitioner, a state pretrial detainee, is proceeding without counsel in this habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Also pending before the court are petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief as well as the appointment of counsel and a guardian ad litem to represent him in these proceedings. ECF Nos. 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 22, 24, 29. For the reasons explained herein, the undersigned recommends granting respondent’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s habeas application without prejudice to refiling as a civil rights action. I. Factual and Procedural Background Petitioner is a pretrial detainee in county custody who is challenging three felony charges stemming from events that occurred on February 15, 2023.1 At an unspecified point during his state criminal proceedings, a doubt was declared about petitioner’s competency and a psychiatric 1 Petitioner contends that he was charged with escape or attempted escape from jail and two counts of resisting an executive officer by means of threats, force, or violence. evaluation was ordered. As a result, petitioner has been transferred to and from the California Department of State Hospitals. See ECF Nos. 13, 26. In his § 2254 application, petitioner asserts that he was sentenced to serve two years on March 27, 2023. ECF No. 1 at 1. However, Yolo County Superior Court records indicate that a trial has yet to be conducted.2 On May 21, 2025, the state trial court determined that petitioner was competent to stand trial and scheduled his trial to commence on June 23, 2025. See Minute Order (May 21, 2025), available at https://tinyurl.com/m4xknayp. Petitioner raises four claims for relief in his § 2254 petition. First, he asserts that the state court denied him federal benefits and discriminated and retaliated against him by using California Penal Code §§ 1367-1370 as punishment when he tried to refuse medication. ECF No. 1 at 5. In claim two, petitioner asserts that the state court violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. ECF No. 1 at 7. Next, petitioner raises a First Amendment violation asserting that he was denied access to the courts. ECF No. 1 at 8. Lastly, petitioner asserts that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because the state court acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Id. at 10. His last claim for relief also alleges that excessive force was used against him on an unspecified date. Id. Petitioner acknowledges that he has not properly exhausted these claims in state court. ECF No. 1 at 12. However, he submits that the exhaustion of state court remedies should be excused in his case because he is incompetent to stand trial or to represent himself under California Penal Code § 1370. The habeas petition requests various forms of relief including: 1) a declaratory judgment; 2) injunctive relief; 3) the appointment of counsel or a guardian ad litem; 4) compensatory and punitive damages; 5) the termination of the pending criminal case against him; and, 6) a stay of proceedings in order to exhaust his state court remedies. ECF No. 1 at 15, 26. Petitioner also
2 This court takes judicial notice of the online docket of the Yolo County Superior Court pursuant to Rule 201(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. People v. Bennett, Case Number CR2023- 0488 (Yolo County Superior Court), available at https://tinyurl.com/3pt34d4v. The court may properly take judicial notice of state court dockets, including those found on the internet. Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (footnote and citations omitted). requests that this court convert his habeas petition into a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1 at 21. On January 8, 2025, the court required respondent to file an answer to the habeas corpus petition as well as to provide the court with a copy of petitioner’s mental health records from the Monroe Detention Facility in order to resolve petitioner’s motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. ECF No. 18. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the pending habeas petition on January 29, 2025 asserting that there is no cognizable claim for relief and, even if there was, the petition should be dismissed because it is wholly unexhausted. ECF No. 20. Respondent principally argues that petitioner’s claims relate to his conditions of confinement and not the lawfulness of his detention. ECF No. 20 at 2. Accordingly, these claims are properly raised in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and not a habeas corpus petition. Respondent further submits that state law provides adequate procedural protections for petitioner to challenge his involuntary medication, and that these protections must be exhausted before seeking federal court intervention. ECF No. 20 at 4 (citation omitted). In his opposition, petitioner contends that the pending criminal charges against him were brought by county officials to retaliate against him. ECF No. 27 at 1. As a result, he should not be required to exhaust his state court remedies because this could lead to further retaliation. ECF No. 27 at 1. He further contends that his petition raises valid First Amendment violations based on this retaliation and his denial of access to the courts. Id. at 2. Petitioner requests that all criminal charges against him be dropped based on this retaliation. Id. Regarding the issue of habeas jurisdiction, petitioner contends that he is challenging the lawfulness of his arrest which is a cognizable habeas claim. Id. at 4. He further submits that any § 1983 action challenging his civil commitment would be Heck barred, so habeas is his only remedy. Id. To the extent that petitioner is challenging his pending criminal charges, respondent submits in his reply brief that the court should abstain from intervening in ongoing state criminal proceedings. ECF No. 28. Construed as a challenge to the state superior court order mandating petitioner’s involuntary medication to restore his competency to stand trial, this claim should be dismissed because it must be raised in a civil rights action. ECF No. 28 at 2. II. Legal Standards When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks is an earlier or immediate release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Alternatively, a prisoner may file a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging specific conditions of confinement. Section 1983 provides civil remedies including monetary damages for injuries caused by violations of federal law by persons acting under the color of state law. “Suits challenging the validity of the prisoner's continued incarceration lie within ‘the heart of habeas corpus,’ whereas ‘a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.’” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 498-99). III. Analysis As a preliminary matter, the court construes petitioner’s habeas application as one filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 since this is the proper procedural vehicle for challenging pretrial confinement in the absence of a final state court judgment. See McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner’s claims do not sound in habeas because they do not affect the fact or duration of his confinement. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (finding that conditions of confinement claims generally must be raised in an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983, not a petition for writ of habeas corpus). His claims based on the ADA, the state court order requiring his involuntary medication, his First Amendment right of access to the courts, and his Eighth Amendment right to be free from deliberate indifference, are all actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996) (access to court claims); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976) (deliberate indifference claims); Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (ADA claims); Jones v. Newsom, No. 1:20-cv-01583-NONE-EPG-HC, 2021 WL 634715 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2021) (recognizing that allegations of forced or involuntary medication are properly raised in a § 1983 action). Petitioner acknowledges as much when he requests that this habeas petition be converted into a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.3 See ECF No. 1 at 21. Thus, his challenges do not fall within the “core of habeas.” The undersigned recommends granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the pending habeas petition without prejudice to refiling as a § 1983 action.4 Lastly, to the extent that petitioner requests that his habeas petition be converted into a civil rights action, the undersigned recommends denying this request in the exercise of the court’s discretion. At the present time, petitioner has six open civil rights actions pending in this judicial district. See Bennett v. Monroe Detention Center, et al., No. 2:22-cv-02157-SCR (E.D Cal.); Bennett v. Newsom, et al., No. 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB (E.D. Cal.); Bennett v. Via Path Technologies, et al., No. 2:24-cv-00769-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.); Bennett v. FBI, et al., No. 2:24- cv-01038-KJM-SCR (E.D. Cal.); Bennett v. Gocke, et al., No. 2:24-cv-01776-CKD (E.D. Cal.); Bennett v. Lopez, et al., No. 2:25-cv-01283-EFB (E.D. Cal.). Therefore, the record demonstrates that petitioner knows how to file a civil rights complaint, and indeed he has done so many times during the course of his confinement on the present state criminal charges. Therefore, the court should decline to exercise its discretion to convert the pending habeas corpus petition into a civil rights complaint. IV. Plain Language Summary for Party Proceeding Without a Lawyer Because petitioner is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, the following information is meant to explain this order in plain English. It is not intended as legal advice. The undersigned has concluded that your claims are not reviewable in this habeas corpus action because they challenge your conditions of confinement. It is also recommended that your request to convert your claims into a civil rights action be denied because you have already filed
3 See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (district courts have discretion to construe a habeas petition attacking conditions of confinement as a complaint under section 1983 despite deliberate choice by petitioner to proceed on habeas), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). 4 In the interests of judicial economy, the court finds it unnecessary to address the remaining grounds in respondent’s motion to dismiss. six separate § 1983 actions in this court which remain pending. If you disagree with these recommendations, you have 14 days to explain why they are wrong. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” The district court judge assigned to your case will review them and make the final decision. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Respondent’s request to vacate the court’s January 8, 2025 order requiring respondent to submit petitioner’s mental health records and to enter a special appearance in petitioner’s pending civil rights cases is DENIED as moot. 2. Respondent’s request to seal petitioner’s mental health records (ECF No. 21) is 3. The Clerk of Court shall file petitioner’s mental health records from the Monroe Detention Center under seal and nunc pro tunc to January 30, 2025 when they were electronically submitted to the court. 4. In light of petitioner’s repetitive and duplicative filings in this case, the court will restrict petitioner’s filings to one single set of objections to these Findings and Recommendations. Any additional requests, notices, or motions filed by petitioner will be stricken from the docket as filed in violation of a court order. No further filings will be accepted by the court pending review of this matter by the district court judge assigned to this case. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) be granted. 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied without prejudice to refiling as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 3. Petitioner’s request to recharacterize the present habeas corpus petition as a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be denied in the exercise of the court’s discretion. 4. All pending motions, including petitioner’s motions for a preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 9, 11, 17, 29) and motions for a guardian ad litem (ECF Nos. 12, 13, 24), be denied as moot in light of the court’s recommendation. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Where, as here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: May 27, 2025 □□ I / dle ae CAROLYNK. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Th/benn2885.F&R+GAL