Rahman R. Rushing v. Warden

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 16, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-07737
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAHMAN RUSHING, Case No. 2:20-07737 AB (ADS) 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 13 CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR MEN, CORPUS Respondent. 14 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 On August 25, 2020, Petitioner Rahman Rushing, a California state prisoner, 18 filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. No. 1]. Petitioner raises one ground for 19 relief, asserting that the prison’s response to Covid-19 is a violation of the Eighth 20 Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. [Id., p. 3]. A review of the 21 pleading and records in this case reveals that Petitioner fails to allege a cognizable claim 22 23 24 1 for federal habeas relief.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court DISMISSES the 2 case without prejudice. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 A. Failure to State a Cognizable Claim 5 The Court has the authority to dismiss habeas actions sua sponte. Under Rule 4

6 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, if it plainly appears from the petition and any 7 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, “the court must summarily 8 dismiss the petition without ordering a responsive pleading.” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 9 644, 656 (2005); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 641, n.1 (9th Cir. 2002) 10 (quoting Rule 4). Under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, a federal court shall entertain an 11 application for writ of habeas corpus “only on the ground that [the petitioner] is in 12 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 13 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for challenging 14 the legality or duration of confinement while a civil rights action is the proper method to 15 challenge conditions of confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 Here, the Court has screened the instant Petition and finds it clear on its face that

17 Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief for the claim he asserts. Habeas corpus 18 proceedings are the proper mechanism for challenging the legality or duration of 19 20 1 Where necessary, the Court takes judicial notice of the public records. See Fed. R. 21 Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 22 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as 23 well as the records of an inferior court in other cases.”); Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that a court may take judicial notice of 24 undisputed matters of public record). 1 confinement while a civil rights action is the proper method to challenge conditions of 2 confinement. Id. Petitioner’s one ground for relief appears to solely challenge the 3 conditions of his confinement by asserting that the prison where is in incarcerated is not 4 providing proper protection against Covid-19. [Dkt. No. 1, p. 3]. Although Petitioner 5 does not state the specific relief he seeks, this challenge concerns the conditions of his

6 confinement and must be raised in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because 7 Petitioner does not appear to challenge the legality or duration of his confinement, the 8 Petition fails to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. 9 To the extent Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, the 10 Court has considered whether to construe Petitioner’s allegations as a civil rights 11 complaint. See Hanson v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 729 (9th Cir. 1974) (“Despite the labeling 12 of his complaint, [the petitioner] was, therefore, entitled to have his action treated as a 13 claim for relief under the Civil Rights Act.”). However, Petitioner has already filed in 14 this Court a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting the same 15 Covid-19. See Case No. 2o-06513 AB (ADS). That complaint alleges the same claim 16 regarding the prison’s response to Covid-19 and attaches the same documents to

17 support his claim. Therefore, it is unnecessary to construe the current federal habeas 18 petition as a civil rights complaint. 19 III. CONCLUSION 20 Petitioner has failed to state a claim cognizable under federal habeas relief and 21 has already filed a civil rights action asserting the same claim. IT IS THEREFORE 22 ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 23 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and Central District of California 24 Local Rule 72-3.2. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 2 In addition, for reasons stated above, the Court finds that Petitioner has not 3 || shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether:” (1) “the petition states a 4 || valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right;” and (2) “the district court was correct 5 || in its procedural ruling.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Thus, a 6 || certificate of appealability is denied. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 || DATED: September 16, 2020 de THE HONORABLE ANDRE BIROTTE JR. 10 United States District Judge 11 12 || Presented by: 13 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 14 || United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24