Huy Trong Tran v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 8, 2022
• Docket: 8:21-cv-00884
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 8:21-cv-00884-VBF-JPR Document 43 Filed 08/08/22 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:332

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HUY TRONG TRAN, ) Case No. SACV 21-0884-VBF (JPR) 11 ) Petitioner, ) 12 ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. 13 ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEN CLARK, Warden, ) 14 ) Respondent. ) 15 ) 16 HUY TRONG TRAN, ) Case No. SACV 21-0886-VBF (JPR) ) 17 Plaintiff, ) ) 18 v. ) ) 19 CDCR et al., ) ) 20 Defendants. ) 21 The Court has reviewed the Petition, First Amended 22 Complaint, records on file, and Report and Recommendation of U.S. 23 Magistrate Judge, which recommends that Respondent’s motion to 24 dismiss the Petition be granted and that it and the FAC be 25 dismissed with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On May 2, 26 2022, Tran objected to the R. & R; Respondent didn’t reply. On 27 May 20 and again on July 21, 2022, Tran moved for appointment of 28 1 Case 8:21-cv-00884-VBF-JPR Document 43 Filed 08/08/22 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:333

1 counsel. Between the filing of the R. & R. and of his 2 Objections, Tran moved to stay each of his cases until the 3 California Supreme Court decided “In re Mohammad, S259999.” 4 (Req. at 1, Dec. 6, 2021.) In July 2022, he moved to stay his 5 civil-rights case until he finished exhausting his administrative 6 remedies, and he sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. 7 Most of Tran’s objections simply reargue points made 8 in his Petition, Opposition, or FAC. A few warrant discussion, 9 however. First, he argues that because “no state court” 10 adjudicated his claim on the merits, “review de novo is 11 entitled.” (Objs. at 2; see also id. at 5.) But as the 12 Magistrate Judge noted, the superior court adjudicated his claim 13 on the merits, finding that the CDCR properly calculated his 14 youth-offender parole-hearing eligibility date. (See R. & R. at 15 5 (citing Pet., Ex. A at 3).) 16 Next, apparently challenging the Magistrate Judge’s finding 17 that the Petition seeks relief unavailable in a habeas action 18 (see R. & R. at 9-10), he points to MacFarlane v. Walter, 179 19 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 1999), opinion vacated sub nom. Lehman v. 20 MacFarlane, 529 U.S. 1106 (2000). But there, petitioners sought 21 “early-release credit” that would have led to earlier release 22 from prison. See 179 F.3d at 1141 (noting that had petitioners 23 received credit, “they would have been required to serve less 24 time”). Here, “Tran would not necessarily be entitled to earlier 25 release even if he were granted a youth-offender parole hearing 26 immediately.” (R. & R. at 10.) The Magistrate Judge didn’t err. 27 Tran is likewise wrong to claim that the Magistrate Judge 28 showed bias. (See Objs. at 3.) She should have noted, he 2 Case 8:21-cv-00884-VBF-JPR Document 43 Filed 08/08/22 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:334

1 argues, that a “statu[t]e gives CDCR discretion to apply good 2 conduct and programming credits to advance” a youth-offender 3 parole-eligibility date. (Id.) Yet he doesn’t dispute that the 4 CDCR has chosen not to do so, as she observed. (See R. & R. at 5 14-15.) She wasn’t biased. 6 Tran’s stay requests are DENIED. In January 2022, the 7 California Supreme Court issued In re Mohammad, 12 Cal. 5th 518 8 (2022). That decision involves state-law issues only and, 9 moreover, ruled against the incarcerated petitioner; it doesn’t 10 warrant a different outcome here. See id. at 541 (finding that 11 CDCR “acted within its discretion” under state constitution in 12 “excluding individuals currently serving a sentence for a violent 13 felony from early parole consideration”). As for his second stay 14 request, Plaintiff claims to be “waiting for decisions of 15 grievances in exhaustion of administrative remedies level” and 16 for a “reply and decision” from the “Attorney General[],” “Office 17 of Internal Affairs,” and the “state auditor[].” (Req. at 1, 18 July 7, 2022.) But he doesn’t explain how waiting for those 19 events changes the result here. After all, the Court isn’t 20 dismissing the Petition and FAC because he failed to exhaust his 21 administrative remedies. 22 And because the Court is dismissing the Petition and FAC 23 with prejudice, Tran’s motions for appointment of counsel are 24 DENIED as moot. See Navarro v. UCSD Sch. of Med., No. 25 12CV1339-GPC(BLM)., 2012 WL 4848977, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 26 2012). At any rate, as the Court has explained to him, there is 27 no right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See 28 Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). Nor does such 3 Case 8:21-cv-00884-VBF-JPR Document 43 Filed 08/08/22 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:335

1 a right exist in a civil-rights case. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 2 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that only “exceptional 3 circumstances” support such discretionary appointment). Tran 4 states only that he “cannot afford to employ an attorney.” (Mot. 5 at 1, May 20, 2022); see also Mot. at 1, July 21, 2022 6 (requesting counsel because he “does not have the financial 7 resources to retain counsel”).) But that fact doesn’t warrant 8 appointment of counsel. See Valenti v. Lizzaraga, No. 9 2:18-cv-02199-CAS (SHK), 2018 WL 11328334, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10 16, 2018); Madrid v. De La Cruz, No. 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG (PC), 11 2020 WL 8970175, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2020); (see also Order 12 at 1, Feb. 28, 2022 (denying Tran’s prior appointment-of-counsel 13 request when he claimed to have “no financial means”)). 14 Moreover, Tran filed objections to the R. & R., and his lawsuits 15 have reached their conclusion. He does not need assistance of 16 counsel at this time. 17 Finally, Tran’s motion for leave to file a SAC is DENIED. 18 As the Magistrate Judge correctly found, the FAC’s claims fail as 19 a matter of law and can’t be cured by amendment. (See R. & R. at 20 16.) And his proposed SAC concerns Defendants and facts 21 unrelated to those in the FAC and omits entirely the FAC’s 22 allegations about his parole-hearing eligibility. (See Mot. 23 Leave at 2-4 (complaining that prison officials lost his personal 24 property and that correctional officers falsified documents).)1 25 He “may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, 26 27 1 Because this document is not paginated, the Court uses the pagination generated by its Case Management/Electronic Case Filing 28 system. 4 Case 8:21-cv-00884-VBF-JPR Document 43 Filed 08/08/22 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:336

1 unrelated claims in an amended complaint.” Lopez v. Berkbile, 2 No. 1:14-cv-01003-LJO-BAM (PC), 2016 WL 4417697, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 3 Aug. 18, 2016); see Dermendziev v. Washington, 624 F. App’x 454, 4 455 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming district court’s dismissal of 5 complaint without leave to amend when plaintiff “sought to add 6 new claims based on unrelated facts against new defendants at 7 another prison”); Thompson v. Catterson, No. C07-985Z., 2007 WL 8 3132457, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 19, 2007) (denying leave to amend 9 complaint to “add unrelated claims and parties”). 10 Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to 11 which Tran objects, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court 12 accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 13 It THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the 14 Petition and dismissing it and the FAC with prejudice.2 15 16 DATED: _A_u_g_u_s_t_ _8_,_ _2_0_2_2_ ___________/_s_/___________________ VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK 17 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 On May 24, 2022, Tran requested an update on the status of 28 his case. His request is GRANTED, as outlined above. 5