(HC) Martin v. Johnson

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 O.Z. MARTIN, No. 2:21-cv-01967 KJM KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 R.C. JOHNSON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 6, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 26 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 27 Petitioner objects to the findings and recommendations on two grounds: 1) the magistrate 28 judge erred in recommending the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and 2) the 1 magistrate judge erred in declining to convert this petition to a civil rights action under section 2 1983. See Objs. at 7–9, ECF No. 19. 3 First, the court agrees with the magistrate judge and finds the court does not have 4 jurisdiction over the habeas petition because petitioner’s claims do not fall within the “core of 5 habeas corpus.” In other words, for the reasons outlined in the findings and recommendations, 6 see F. & R. at 5–7, ECF No. 16, success on petitioner’s claims “would not necessarily lead to his 7 immediate or earlier release from confinement,” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 8 2016). The court declines to reiterate the magistrate judge’s discussion here. 9 Second, the court finds the magistrate judge did not err in declining to recommend 10 conversion of the habeas petition into a section 1983 civil rights action. See F. & R. at 7 n.3. A 11 court has discretion to convert a habeas petition “[i]f the complaint is amenable to conversion on 12 its face, meaning that it names the correct defendants and seeks the correct relief[.]” Nettles, 13 830 F.3d at 936 (quoting Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)). Here, the 14 petition is not amenable to conversion on its face: it names the warden, R.C. Johnson, as the sole 15 defendant, and the sole remedy requested is for the court to grant the petition. See generally 16 Petition, ECF No.1; see also F. & R. at 7 n.3. Accordingly, conversion of the petition to a section 17 1983 action is not warranted here. 18 Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must be issued. 19 See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue under 20 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 21 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by 22 demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his 23 constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 24 encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). The court 25 finds jurists of reason would not find it debatable that the court lacks jurisdiction over this 26 petition or that the petition should be converted to a civil rights action. 27 ///// 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 6, 2023, are adopted in full; 3 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; 4 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and 5 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 6 || § 2253. 7 | DATED: August 18, 2023. 10 CHIEF STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28