1 2 3
4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 JOSE ARROYO BALCAZAR, NO. EDCV 25-1516-JFW (AGR) 10 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT 11 v. PREJUDICE TO FILING A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION 12 E. RICOKOL et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 For the reasons discussed below, the Court summarily dismisses the 16 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prejudice to the filing of a civil rights 17 action. 18 I. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Petitioner is a federal inmate serving a 360-month sentence imposed 21 following a conviction for several methamphetamine-trafficking offenses in the 22 United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The Eleventh 23 Circuit affirmed. United States v. Balcazar, 775 Fed. Appx. 657 (11th Cir. 2019). 24 Petitioner is currently incarcerated at FCI Victorville in Victorville, California. (Dkt. 25 No. 1 (“Petition”).) 26 On June 5, 2025, Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 27 Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 28 1 The Petition does not challenge Petitioner’s conviction or sentence. 2 Instead, Petitioner alleges deliberate indifference of prison officials and seeks 3 injunctive and declaratory relief. Specifically, Petitioner asks the court to order 4 the BOP to “immediately evaluate and provide [him] with access to the MAT [aka 5 Medical Assisted Treatment] program.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 4.) 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 8 Courts (Rule 4) is applicable to proceedings brought pursuant to section 2241. 9 Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Rule 4 provides that “[i]f it 10 plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the 11 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the 12 petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Here, summary dismissal is 13 warranted. 14 A challenge of the fact or duration of confinement which, if successful, 15 would result in immediate or speedier release falls within the “core” of habeas 16 corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-500 (1973); Pinson v. 17 Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1069, 1071 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding action sounds in 18 habeas if success would necessarily demonstrate invalidity of confinement or its 19 duration; federal prisoner’s conditions-of-confinement claim may not be brought in 20 habeas under § 2241), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1382 (2024). Petitioner does not challenge his conviction, sentence, or the duration of his 21 confinement. Instead, he challenges the alleged deliberate indifference of the 22 prison medical staff regarding his treatment needs and the screening for the MAT 23 program. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable in federal habeas 24 and must be brought, if at all, as a civil rights action. See Tucker v. Carlson, 925 25 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal prisoner asserting civil rights claims must 26 file Bivens action rather than § 2241 petition); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 27 891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition because 28 1 challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought, if at all, as 2 civil rights complaint); see also Pinson, 69 F.4th at 1073-75 (affirming dismissal of 3 claims based on deliberate indifference to serious medical needs brought in § 4 2241 petition). 5 Petitioner may attempt to assert claims challenging conditions of 6 confinement through a civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 7 A federal court has the authority to construe a habeas corpus petition as a 8 civil rights complaint under certain circumstances. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 9 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (per curiam); Pinson, 69 F.4th at 1075-76 (district court 10 may construe a petition for habeas corpus as a civil rights action after notifying 11 and obtaining informed consent from the prisoner). However, the Court declines 12 to do so here for the following reasons. 13 First, it is unclear whether the Petition names the correct defendants. The 14 Petition names the Warden and “John Doe” as respondents. Petitioner’s 15 allegations vaguely assert that “Warden, Regional Coordinator, and Central Office 16 Administrator[] have consistently failed to provide [Petitioner] with timely and 17 adequate medical care.” (Petition at 3.) Petitioner does not describe any specific 18 conduct of any of these individuals that would demonstrate a violation of a federal 19 constitutional right. See Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) 20 (“To state a claim for relief under Bivens, a plaintiff must allege that a federal officer deprived him of his constitutional rights.”); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 21 F.2d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that “respondeat superior is inapplicable 22 to Bivens actions”). 23 Second, Petitioner failed to specify the capacity in which the named 24 respondent(s) would be sued for purposes of a civil rights claim, which is critical 25 to the issue of sovereign immunity. See Solida v. McKelvey, 820 F.3d 1090, 1094 26 (9th Cir. 2016) (“By definition, Bivens suits are individual capacity suits and thus 27 cannot enjoin official government action.”) 28 1 Third, the various differences in the procedures undertaken in habeas 2 proceedings and civil rights actions, including the amount of filing fees and the 3 potential restrictions on future filings, further counsel against converting the 4 Petition into a Bivens civil rights complaint. See, e.g., Nunez v. Pliler, 2020 WL 5 5880461, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020) (conversion of habeas corpus petition into 6 a Bivens complaint inappropriate where petition did not name correct prison officials and considering significant difference in procedural requirements 7 between habeas corpus and civil rights actions); Rockett v. Lepe, 2020 WL 8 4003585, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2020) (same). The Court therefore will 9 dismiss the habeas action without prejudice to Petitioner’s ability to file a separate 10 civil rights action under Bivens. 11 If Petitioner chooses to file a civil rights action, he is advised that he must 12 either (1) pay the filing fee or (2) file a Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of 13 Filing Fees with Declaration in Support (“IFP Request”). 14 If his IFP Request is granted, he will be obligated to pay the filing fee of 15 even if his complaint is unsuccessful. The Clerk is directed to send to Petitioner a 16 prisoner civil rights complaint with forms, instructions and further information. In 17 summary, the Court would assess an initial partial filing fee equal to 20% of the 18 average monthly deposits to his prison account for the six months immediately 19 preceding the filing of the action, or 20% of the average monthly balance in his 20 prison account for that same six-month period, whichever is greater. The Court would order the prison to take that initial partial filing fee out of his prison account 21 and forward the money to the Clerk of Court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3
4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 JOSE ARROYO BALCAZAR, NO. EDCV 25-1516-JFW (AGR) 10 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT 11 v. PREJUDICE TO FILING A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION 12 E. RICOKOL et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 For the reasons discussed below, the Court summarily dismisses the 16 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prejudice to the filing of a civil rights 17 action. 18 I. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Petitioner is a federal inmate serving a 360-month sentence imposed 21 following a conviction for several methamphetamine-trafficking offenses in the 22 United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The Eleventh 23 Circuit affirmed. United States v. Balcazar, 775 Fed. Appx. 657 (11th Cir. 2019). 24 Petitioner is currently incarcerated at FCI Victorville in Victorville, California. (Dkt. 25 No. 1 (“Petition”).) 26 On June 5, 2025, Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 27 Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 28 1 The Petition does not challenge Petitioner’s conviction or sentence. 2 Instead, Petitioner alleges deliberate indifference of prison officials and seeks 3 injunctive and declaratory relief. Specifically, Petitioner asks the court to order 4 the BOP to “immediately evaluate and provide [him] with access to the MAT [aka 5 Medical Assisted Treatment] program.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 4.) 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 8 Courts (Rule 4) is applicable to proceedings brought pursuant to section 2241. 9 Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Rule 4 provides that “[i]f it 10 plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the 11 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the 12 petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Here, summary dismissal is 13 warranted. 14 A challenge of the fact or duration of confinement which, if successful, 15 would result in immediate or speedier release falls within the “core” of habeas 16 corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-500 (1973); Pinson v. 17 Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1069, 1071 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding action sounds in 18 habeas if success would necessarily demonstrate invalidity of confinement or its 19 duration; federal prisoner’s conditions-of-confinement claim may not be brought in 20 habeas under § 2241), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1382 (2024). Petitioner does not challenge his conviction, sentence, or the duration of his 21 confinement. Instead, he challenges the alleged deliberate indifference of the 22 prison medical staff regarding his treatment needs and the screening for the MAT 23 program. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable in federal habeas 24 and must be brought, if at all, as a civil rights action. See Tucker v. Carlson, 925 25 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal prisoner asserting civil rights claims must 26 file Bivens action rather than § 2241 petition); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 27 891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition because 28 1 challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought, if at all, as 2 civil rights complaint); see also Pinson, 69 F.4th at 1073-75 (affirming dismissal of 3 claims based on deliberate indifference to serious medical needs brought in § 4 2241 petition). 5 Petitioner may attempt to assert claims challenging conditions of 6 confinement through a civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 7 A federal court has the authority to construe a habeas corpus petition as a 8 civil rights complaint under certain circumstances. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 9 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (per curiam); Pinson, 69 F.4th at 1075-76 (district court 10 may construe a petition for habeas corpus as a civil rights action after notifying 11 and obtaining informed consent from the prisoner). However, the Court declines 12 to do so here for the following reasons. 13 First, it is unclear whether the Petition names the correct defendants. The 14 Petition names the Warden and “John Doe” as respondents. Petitioner’s 15 allegations vaguely assert that “Warden, Regional Coordinator, and Central Office 16 Administrator[] have consistently failed to provide [Petitioner] with timely and 17 adequate medical care.” (Petition at 3.) Petitioner does not describe any specific 18 conduct of any of these individuals that would demonstrate a violation of a federal 19 constitutional right. See Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) 20 (“To state a claim for relief under Bivens, a plaintiff must allege that a federal officer deprived him of his constitutional rights.”); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 21 F.2d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that “respondeat superior is inapplicable 22 to Bivens actions”). 23 Second, Petitioner failed to specify the capacity in which the named 24 respondent(s) would be sued for purposes of a civil rights claim, which is critical 25 to the issue of sovereign immunity. See Solida v. McKelvey, 820 F.3d 1090, 1094 26 (9th Cir. 2016) (“By definition, Bivens suits are individual capacity suits and thus 27 cannot enjoin official government action.”) 28 1 Third, the various differences in the procedures undertaken in habeas 2 proceedings and civil rights actions, including the amount of filing fees and the 3 potential restrictions on future filings, further counsel against converting the 4 Petition into a Bivens civil rights complaint. See, e.g., Nunez v. Pliler, 2020 WL 5 5880461, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020) (conversion of habeas corpus petition into 6 a Bivens complaint inappropriate where petition did not name correct prison officials and considering significant difference in procedural requirements 7 between habeas corpus and civil rights actions); Rockett v. Lepe, 2020 WL 8 4003585, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2020) (same). The Court therefore will 9 dismiss the habeas action without prejudice to Petitioner’s ability to file a separate 10 civil rights action under Bivens. 11 If Petitioner chooses to file a civil rights action, he is advised that he must 12 either (1) pay the filing fee or (2) file a Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of 13 Filing Fees with Declaration in Support (“IFP Request”). 14 If his IFP Request is granted, he will be obligated to pay the filing fee of 15 even if his complaint is unsuccessful. The Clerk is directed to send to Petitioner a 16 prisoner civil rights complaint with forms, instructions and further information. In 17 summary, the Court would assess an initial partial filing fee equal to 20% of the 18 average monthly deposits to his prison account for the six months immediately 19 preceding the filing of the action, or 20% of the average monthly balance in his 20 prison account for that same six-month period, whichever is greater. The Court would order the prison to take that initial partial filing fee out of his prison account 21 and forward the money to the Clerk of Court. He would owe the balance of the 22 $350 filing fee. Until the balance is paid in full, he will owe monthly payments as 23 described in the instructions that the Clerk will forward to Petitioner. 24 The IFP Request requires that Petitioner complete the Prisoner 25 Authorization and have a prison official complete the Certification Section on the 26 Declaration and attach a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for 27 the six months immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. 28 Petitioner is further advised that, if his IFP Request is granted and his 2 | complaint is dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 3 | relief may be granted, it may count as a “strike” under section 1915(g). A prisoner 4 || may not bring a civil action without prepayment if he or she has, on three or more 5 || prior occasions, brought an action in federal court “that was dismissed on the 6 grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 7 | may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical g injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 9 ll. CONCLUSION © For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of i Habeas Corpus is dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner’s ability to file a V2 separate civil rights action. 13 The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a federal prisoner civil rights packet to 14 | Petitioner. 15 16 17 | DATED: July 10, 2025 fa ZLIB 18 . JOHN F. WALTER United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28