Lonsdale v. Lemus

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01223
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GABRIEL PIES LONSDALE, Case No.: 25cv1223-AJB (JLB)

11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CASE 13 LEMUS, Warden, et al, 14 Respondents. 15 16 17 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the San Diego County Jail proceeding 18 pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 along 19 with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) Petitioner claims that his 20 legal mail has been tampered with resulting in his failure to timely receive a January 18, 21 2023, Order in So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 22cv0390-TWR (JLB), granting in part and 22 denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil action and ordering Petitioner to 23 show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 1 at 24 1-3.) He claims that as a result, that case was dismissed for failure to prosecute in violation 25 of his due process rights, and he continues to be incarcerated in violation of his First 26 Amendment right to the free exercise of his religious beliefs which amounts to cruel and 27 unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, conditions he was challenging 28 in that other case. (Id. at 4-5.) 1 Based on a review of Petitioner’s financial affidavit, the Court GRANTS his 2 application to proceed in forma pauperis and allows him to prosecute the above-referenced 3 action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being 4 required to post security. 5 However, the Petition is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because 6 Petitioner is challenging the dismissal of a civil action in which he challenged the 7 conditions of his confinement rather than the duration of his incarceration. The Ninth 8 Circuit has long held that the “the writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon the 9 legality or duration of confinement” and does not cover claims based on allegations “that 10 the terms and conditions of . . . incarceration constitute cruel and unusual punishment.” 11 Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979). A prisoner’s claim is at “the core of

12 habeas corpus” if it “goes directly to the constitutionality of his physical confinement itself 13 and seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the shortening of its duration.” 14 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 15 (2005) (holding that an action sounds in habeas “no matter the relief sought (damages or 16 equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit . . . if success in that action would 17 necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”); Skinner v. Switzer, 18 562 U.S. at 521, 525 (2011) (“Habeas is the exclusive remedy . . . for the prisoner who 19 seeks immediate or speedier release from confinement. Where the prisoner’s claim would 20 not necessarily spell speedier release, however, suit may be brought under § 1983.”) 21 (citation and quote marks omitted); see also Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th 22 Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“[W]e hold that if a state prisoner’s claim does not lie at ‘the core of 23 habeas corpus,’ it may not be brought in habeas corpus but must be brought, ‘if at all,’ 24 under § 1983.”), quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487. 25 If it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner 26 is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct 27 the clerk to notify the petitioner.” R. 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (2019); see 28 also id., R. 1(b) (permitting district courts to apply the 2254 Habeas Rules to § 2241 habeas 1 proceedings). The Court lacks habeas jurisdiction over Petitioner’s challenge to the 2 ||conditions of his confinement at the San Diego County Jail or over the dismissal of his 3 || civil case in So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 22cv0390-TWR (JLB) in which he challenged 4 ||those conditions. The dismissal of this action is without prejudice to Petitioner to attempt 5 ||to seek relief from final judgment in So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 22cv0390-TWR (JLB) 6 || based on the allegations in this petition that he did not receive notice of the order to show 7 || cause. 8 Petitioner’s Motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED and the Petition is DISMISSED 9 || for lack of habeas jurisdiction without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court will enter final 10 ||judgment and close the case. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: June 19, 2025 | ZS Zz : Le 13 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28