Hernandez v. Carpenter

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Dec 14, 2023 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 8 9 BRYAN PAUL HERNANDEZ, 10 No. 2:23-cv-00250-SAB Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS 12 ACTION

13 ERIC CARPENTER, 14 Respondent. 15

16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner Bryan Paul Hernandez’s First Amended 18 Petition received on October 20, 2023. ECF No. 7. Petitioner, a civilly committed 19 detainee at the Eastern State Hospital (“ESH”), is proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis. Respondent has not been served. Petitioner seeks his immediate 21 discharge. Id. at 7. 22 By Order filed October 10, 2023, the Court advised Petitioner of the 23 deficiencies of his habeas corpus petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 24 and granted him the opportunity to amend. ECF No. 6. Specifically, Petitioner’s 25 challenges to the conditions of his confinement and his request for monetary 26 damages were not cognizable on habeas review. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 27 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1979). Furthermore, 28 he failed to present facts from which the Court could infer that he had exhausted 1 his state court remedies as to any challenge to the fact of his confinement. See ECF 2 No. 6 at 5. 3 Liberally construing the First Amended Petition in the light most favorable 4 to Petitioner, the Court finds that he has not cured the deficiencies of the initial 5 petition. While Petitioner claims to be challenging an Order of Commitment dated 6 July 20, 2023, he indicates that his appeal to the Court of Appeals has been stayed 7 pending a finding that he is indigent, id., thus demonstrating his state court 8 remedies have not been exhausted. See Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 9 (9th Cir. 2003); Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2003). Once again, 10 any challenge to the conditions of his confinement is not cognizable in a habeas 11 claim. See Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Crawford, 599 F.2d at 890. 12 // 13 // 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s Order to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis, Order to Amend Petition, and Order Denying Motion 3}| for Miscellaneous Relief, ECF No. 6, IT IS ORDERED: l. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to 5|| exhaust state court remedies. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE the file. 8 3. The Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal 9)| from this decision could not be taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. 11}| P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order 13|| and provide copies to Petitioner at his last known address. 14 DATED this 14th day of December 2023. 15 16 17 byt Zato 19 Sfeukeyl Siesta 20) Stanley A. Bastian 51 Chief United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28