1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAD NOLEN MOSIER, No. 2:24-cv-2282-CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 KOREY HONEA, 15 Respondent.
16 17 Petitioner Chad Nolen Mosier, a county inmate, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 18, 2024, the court screened the petition, found its 19 allegations were too vague to specify any constitutional violation entitling petitioner to relief, and 20 dismissed the petition with leave to amend. (ECF No. 4.) The amended petition is before the court 21 for screening. (ECF No. 5.) 22 I. Screening Standard 23 In screening the habeas petition, the court applies the Rule 4 framework of the Rules 24 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Under Rule 4’s standard, if it 25 plainly appears from the petition, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that 26 the moving party is not entitled to relief, then the district court is authorized to summarily dismiss 27 a habeas petition. Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2024); Herbst v. Cook, 260 28 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001). 1 II. Allegations in the Amended Petition 2 Petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction in the Butte County Superior Court entered 3 on June 17, 2024. (ECF No. 5 at 1.) He first brings a claim regarding jail conditions, alleging the 4 food ports in B-Pod and A-Pod are not secure. (Id. at 4.) Petitioner next asserts there is “wrong 5 information in the court’s paperwork, such as a wrong address and wrong dates.” (Id.) In ground 6 three, petitioner alleges incompetence of counsel, who allegedly threatened petitioner because he 7 would not take a deal. (Id. at 5.) Finally, petitioner asserts “attorney abandonment” in that his 8 attorneys have failed to represent him twice while he has been in custody. (Id.) 9 According to the amended petition’s allegations, petitioner did not appeal from the 10 judgment of conviction. (ECF No. 5 at 1.) The only other petition, application, or motion filed 11 with respect to the judgment of conviction is a use of force claim raised in the Butte County 12 Superior Court. (Id. at 2.) 13 III. Discussion 14 A. Insufficient Factual Allegations 15 Petitioner has not remedied the defects identified in the court’s initial screening order. In 16 the court’s initial screening order, the court found petitioner failed to specify a constitutional 17 violation entitling him to relief based on the following asserted grounds: 18 First, [petitioner] asserts that his arrest was late. Next, petitioner contends that a Chico police officer lied about petitioner going 19 through drawers at the crime scene. Petitioner also asserts that he was discriminated against in the community on two occasions. 20 Lastly, petitioner believes that an officer behaved improperly by asking him if he was homeless. 21 22 (ECF No. 4 at 1-2.) 23 The amended petition, while appearing to raise some different grounds for relief, suffers 24 from the same deficiencies described in that order because it sets forth a mere sentence or two for 25 each ground. More detailed factual allegations are required to state a claim. 26 Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition (1) specify all grounds of relief available to the 27 petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground; and (3) state the relief requested. Notice 28 pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must state facts that point to a real possibility of a 1 constitutional error. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005). Allegations in a petition that are 2 vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. 3 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 4 Although the court understands petitioner to be asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, 5 petitioner has not provided the necessary supporting facts for any claim and therefore has not 6 specified a constitutional violation entitling him to relief. The amended petition must be 7 dismissed. 8 B. Scope of Habeas Jurisdiction 9 Petitioner’s first ground for relief challenging jail conditions is outside the scope of this 10 court’s jurisdiction for a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Habeas jurisdiction extends only to 11 claims challenging the validity or duration of a prisoner’s confinement. See generally Muhammad 12 v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004); Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1137 (9th Cir. 2018). 13 In contrast, issues related solely to the conditions of an inmate’s confinement, which do not 14 directly affect the fact of duration of custody, must be pursued in a civil rights action. See Nettles 15 v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 930 (9th Cir. 2016) (“§ 1983 is the exclusive remedy for state prisoner 16 claims that do not lie at the core of habeas”); id. at 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (claims that if successful 17 would not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement do not fall within the 18 core of habeas corpus). 19 Because success on petitioner’s claim regarding food ports at the jail could not lead to his 20 immediate or speedier release from custody, ground one of the amended petition is outside the 21 core of habeas corpus. Such a claim cannot be pursued in habeas petition and must, instead, be 22 pursued in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id. at 927-28. 23 C. Exhaustion Requirement 24 The amended petition also fails to show petitioner exhausted state judicial remedies. A 25 petitioner who wishes to collaterally challenge his state convictions by a petition for writ of 26 habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Although non- 27 exhaustion of remedies has been viewed as an affirmative defense, it is the petitioner’s burden to 28 prove that state judicial remedies were properly exhausted. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), and the 1 court may raise the exhaustion issue sua sponte. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th 2 Cir. 1981). 3 A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court 4 with the necessary jurisdiction a fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the 5 federal court, and by demonstrating that no state remedy remains available. Picard v. Connor, 404 6 U.S. 270, 275 (1971); Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2011). When none of a 7 petitioner’s claims have been presented to the highest state court, the court should ordinarily 8 dismiss the petition. Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district 9 court determines that a habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims ... it may simply dismiss 10 the habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAD NOLEN MOSIER, No. 2:24-cv-2282-CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 KOREY HONEA, 15 Respondent.
16 17 Petitioner Chad Nolen Mosier, a county inmate, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 18, 2024, the court screened the petition, found its 19 allegations were too vague to specify any constitutional violation entitling petitioner to relief, and 20 dismissed the petition with leave to amend. (ECF No. 4.) The amended petition is before the court 21 for screening. (ECF No. 5.) 22 I. Screening Standard 23 In screening the habeas petition, the court applies the Rule 4 framework of the Rules 24 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Under Rule 4’s standard, if it 25 plainly appears from the petition, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that 26 the moving party is not entitled to relief, then the district court is authorized to summarily dismiss 27 a habeas petition. Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2024); Herbst v. Cook, 260 28 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001). 1 II. Allegations in the Amended Petition 2 Petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction in the Butte County Superior Court entered 3 on June 17, 2024. (ECF No. 5 at 1.) He first brings a claim regarding jail conditions, alleging the 4 food ports in B-Pod and A-Pod are not secure. (Id. at 4.) Petitioner next asserts there is “wrong 5 information in the court’s paperwork, such as a wrong address and wrong dates.” (Id.) In ground 6 three, petitioner alleges incompetence of counsel, who allegedly threatened petitioner because he 7 would not take a deal. (Id. at 5.) Finally, petitioner asserts “attorney abandonment” in that his 8 attorneys have failed to represent him twice while he has been in custody. (Id.) 9 According to the amended petition’s allegations, petitioner did not appeal from the 10 judgment of conviction. (ECF No. 5 at 1.) The only other petition, application, or motion filed 11 with respect to the judgment of conviction is a use of force claim raised in the Butte County 12 Superior Court. (Id. at 2.) 13 III. Discussion 14 A. Insufficient Factual Allegations 15 Petitioner has not remedied the defects identified in the court’s initial screening order. In 16 the court’s initial screening order, the court found petitioner failed to specify a constitutional 17 violation entitling him to relief based on the following asserted grounds: 18 First, [petitioner] asserts that his arrest was late. Next, petitioner contends that a Chico police officer lied about petitioner going 19 through drawers at the crime scene. Petitioner also asserts that he was discriminated against in the community on two occasions. 20 Lastly, petitioner believes that an officer behaved improperly by asking him if he was homeless. 21 22 (ECF No. 4 at 1-2.) 23 The amended petition, while appearing to raise some different grounds for relief, suffers 24 from the same deficiencies described in that order because it sets forth a mere sentence or two for 25 each ground. More detailed factual allegations are required to state a claim. 26 Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition (1) specify all grounds of relief available to the 27 petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground; and (3) state the relief requested. Notice 28 pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must state facts that point to a real possibility of a 1 constitutional error. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005). Allegations in a petition that are 2 vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. 3 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 4 Although the court understands petitioner to be asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, 5 petitioner has not provided the necessary supporting facts for any claim and therefore has not 6 specified a constitutional violation entitling him to relief. The amended petition must be 7 dismissed. 8 B. Scope of Habeas Jurisdiction 9 Petitioner’s first ground for relief challenging jail conditions is outside the scope of this 10 court’s jurisdiction for a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Habeas jurisdiction extends only to 11 claims challenging the validity or duration of a prisoner’s confinement. See generally Muhammad 12 v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004); Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1137 (9th Cir. 2018). 13 In contrast, issues related solely to the conditions of an inmate’s confinement, which do not 14 directly affect the fact of duration of custody, must be pursued in a civil rights action. See Nettles 15 v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 930 (9th Cir. 2016) (“§ 1983 is the exclusive remedy for state prisoner 16 claims that do not lie at the core of habeas”); id. at 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (claims that if successful 17 would not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement do not fall within the 18 core of habeas corpus). 19 Because success on petitioner’s claim regarding food ports at the jail could not lead to his 20 immediate or speedier release from custody, ground one of the amended petition is outside the 21 core of habeas corpus. Such a claim cannot be pursued in habeas petition and must, instead, be 22 pursued in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id. at 927-28. 23 C. Exhaustion Requirement 24 The amended petition also fails to show petitioner exhausted state judicial remedies. A 25 petitioner who wishes to collaterally challenge his state convictions by a petition for writ of 26 habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Although non- 27 exhaustion of remedies has been viewed as an affirmative defense, it is the petitioner’s burden to 28 prove that state judicial remedies were properly exhausted. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), and the 1 court may raise the exhaustion issue sua sponte. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th 2 Cir. 1981). 3 A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court 4 with the necessary jurisdiction a fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the 5 federal court, and by demonstrating that no state remedy remains available. Picard v. Connor, 404 6 U.S. 270, 275 (1971); Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2011). When none of a 7 petitioner’s claims have been presented to the highest state court, the court should ordinarily 8 dismiss the petition. Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district 9 court determines that a habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims ... it may simply dismiss 10 the habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”). Only under limited circumstances which are not 11 present here may an unexhausted habeas petition may be stayed pending exhaustion. Mena v. 12 Long, 813 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2016). The requirements for such a stay are the following: (1) 13 the petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust, (2) his unexhausted claims are potentially 14 meritorious, and (3) there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory 15 litigation tactics.” Mena, 813 F.3d at 910 (quoting Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005)). 16 Here, petitioner’s allegations in the amended petition suggest he has not exhausted state 17 court remedies for any ground presented. The amended petition does not meet the requirements to 18 be stayed. Thus, the amended petition should be dismissed. 19 D. Leave to Amend 20 Petitioner will be granted another opportunity to amend to attempt to cure these 21 deficiencies to the extent he can do so. In any amended petition, petitioner must address whether 22 he has exhausted each ground for relief presented. If petitioner has not exhausted any claims, then 23 this action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. If 24 that is the case, petitioner may file a notice of voluntary dismissal. 25 PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY FOR PRO SE PARTY 26 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English. This 27 information is not intended as legal advice. 28 //// ] The court is dismissing your amended petition because you have not alleged enough 2 || factual details for the court to screen the claims you are attempting to bring. It also appears you 3 || have not exhausted your claims by presenting them to the highest state court before bringing them 4 || to this federal court, which is required. If you file a further amended petition, explain how you 5 || have already raised your claims to the highest state court. If you have not exhausted your claims, 6 || you may file a notice of voluntary dismissal which will terminate this case as a matter of law. 7 IV. Order 8 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 9 1. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with leave to amend. 10 2. Within 30 days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file either a further amended 11 | petition for writ of habeas corpus or a notice of voluntary dismissal. 12 3. A further amended petition must bear the case number assigned to this action and the 13 || title “Second Amended Petition”; failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation 14 || to dismiss this action. 15 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form application for 16 || writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 17 | Dated: January 21, 2025 / ae □□ / a Ly a 18 CAROLYN K DELANEY 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 || mosi2282.114 22 23 24 25 26 27 28