1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION
12 ROBERT E. MARTIN, No. 8:24-cv-01118-DMG-BFM 13 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 WHY HABEAS PETITION BRANDON PRICE, SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 15 Respondent. 16 17
18 Petitioner Robert E. Martin filed a habeas petition in the Eastern District 19 of California. (ECF 1 (“Petition”).) He used the form for petitions brought 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The District Court for the Eastern District of 21 California transferred the Petition to the Central District of California, finding 22 that the Petition should be construed as a habeas petition brought pursuant to 23 § 2254. 24 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 25 States District Court—rules that apply to the Petition in this Court—the Court 26 must review the Petition before ordering a response. If it “plainly appears” from 27 28 1 that initial review that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court must 2 dismiss the Petition. 3 Here, the Petitioner raises 22 grounds for relief. Most of those grounds do 4 not appear to be ones that can be brought in a habeas petition via § 2254. At the 5 same time, the Court recognizes that Petitioner did not set out to file a § 2254 6 petition; he filed a petition pursuant to § 2241. Section 2241 is not an 7 appropriate vehicle to raise claims of the kind that Petitioner raised. Nettles v. 8 Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 930 (9th Cir. 2016). Given that Petitioner is unable to 9 proceed via § 2241, it is unclear how Petitioner wants to proceed. 10 Petitioner has two options at this point: (1) If Petitioner wants to proceed 11 in this Court via § 2254, he should file an amended petition with only those 12 claims that challenge the judgment of the Orange County Superior Court civilly 13 committing him. He may also include additional claims that challenge the civil 14 commitment judgment. All habeas challenges to a judgment must be included 15 in a single petition; (2) If Petitioner does not want to proceed on the claims that 16 can brought in habeas petition pursuant to § 2254, he may withdraw the 17 Petition in this Court. Doing so would be without prejudice to him filing any of 18 his claims as a civil-rights lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 in the district 19 in which he is confined. 20 As Petitioner decides how to proceed, the Court advises him of the 21 following: A habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenges a 22 criminal judgment. A judgment civilly committing an individual is technically a 23 civil judgment, but the Ninth Circuit has permitted individuals subject to such 24 judgment to challenge them via § 2254. E.g., Carty v. Nelson, 426 F.3d 1064, 25 1073, amended, 431 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2005); Felix v. Hennessey, 616 F. App’x 26 862, 863 (9th Cir. 2015). Federal habeas relief can only be granted if a conviction 27 or related judgment “violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 28 1 States.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991). A court may not grant federal 2 habeas relief solely because a state court decision violated state law, unless the 3 decision also violated federal law; that is, “federal habeas corpus relief does not 4 lie for errors of state law.” Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68 (citation omitted). Claims 5 relating to the ineffectiveness of counsel and other similar federal constitutional 6 violations are often raised via § 2254 petition. 7 While some of Petitioner’s claims could arguably be brought pursuant to 8 § 2254, others do not appear to raise challenges cognizable under that statute. 9 Some of Petitioner’s claims appear to allege that Petitioner’s constitutional or 10 other rights have been violated in custody. Examples of such claims include 11 claims relating to conditions of confinement, and whether a prison’s policies 12 infringe the constitutional right of access to the court. Petitioner cannot combine 13 claims challenging conditions of confinement with a habeas petition that 14 challenges the judgment civilly committing him—civil rights violations must be 15 alleged in a civil suit, not a habeas action, and must be filed in the district of 16 confinement. Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 & n. 1 (9th Cir. 1979) 17 (affirming dismissal of habeas petition because petition’s challenges to 18 conditions of confinement must be brought in civil rights action); see also 28 19 U.S.C. § 1983 (providing a vehicle for filing a civil suit where a person acting 20 under color of state law deprives another of rights secured by the federal 21 Constitution and law). In addition, any claim for which money damages are 22 sought must be raised in a civil suit; monetary damages cannot be sought in a 23 habeas petition. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973). 24 Some of Petitioner’s claims appear to relate to the underlying charge, and 25 not to the civil commitment proceeding. Challenges to Petitioner’s underlying 26 conviction would appear to be untimely, given that Petitioner’s conviction 27 28 1 occurred decades ago, and in any event should not be combined with a petition 2 that challenges a civil commitment judgment. 3 Other claims are simply incomprehensible, such that the Court cannot tell 4 what the basis of the claim is. Petitioner is warned that such claims are subject 5 to dismissal on that ground alone. See Clarke v. Shasta Cnty. Jail, No. 2:12-cv- 6 1565-DAD-P, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2012) (habeas petition subject to dismissal 7 where the allegations are “unintelligible and incomprehensible”). 8 Petitioner is therefore ORDERED to show cause—to explain—in writing 9 why the Court should not recommend dismissal of those claims that do not 10 clearly state a ground of relief that is cognizable in a federal habeas petition 11 pursuant to § 2254. No later than July 17, 2024, Petitioner shall respond, in 12 writing, to this Order. In his response, Petitioner must set forth his arguments, 13 if any, as to why his Petition, or claims in his Petition, should not be dismissed 14 for the reasons stated in this Order. In the alternative, Petitioner may submit 15 an Amended Petition limited to those claims that are cognizable on habeas 16 review pursuant to § 2254; such a petition will be deemed compliance with this 17 Order. Or, Petitioner may request to withdraw his Petition. 18 Petitioner’s failure to file a timely response to this Order may 19 result in the Court recommending to the assigned District Judge that 20 this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to follow court 21 orders. 22 The Court notes that the District Court for the Eastern District of 23 California re-characterized this Petition, which Petitioner claimed was brought 24 pursuant to § 2241 (Petition at 1), as one brought pursuant to § 2254. It does 25 not appear that the court advised Petitioner of the consequences of that choice, 26 pursuant to Castro v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION
12 ROBERT E. MARTIN, No. 8:24-cv-01118-DMG-BFM 13 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 WHY HABEAS PETITION BRANDON PRICE, SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 15 Respondent. 16 17
18 Petitioner Robert E. Martin filed a habeas petition in the Eastern District 19 of California. (ECF 1 (“Petition”).) He used the form for petitions brought 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The District Court for the Eastern District of 21 California transferred the Petition to the Central District of California, finding 22 that the Petition should be construed as a habeas petition brought pursuant to 23 § 2254. 24 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 25 States District Court—rules that apply to the Petition in this Court—the Court 26 must review the Petition before ordering a response. If it “plainly appears” from 27 28 1 that initial review that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court must 2 dismiss the Petition. 3 Here, the Petitioner raises 22 grounds for relief. Most of those grounds do 4 not appear to be ones that can be brought in a habeas petition via § 2254. At the 5 same time, the Court recognizes that Petitioner did not set out to file a § 2254 6 petition; he filed a petition pursuant to § 2241. Section 2241 is not an 7 appropriate vehicle to raise claims of the kind that Petitioner raised. Nettles v. 8 Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 930 (9th Cir. 2016). Given that Petitioner is unable to 9 proceed via § 2241, it is unclear how Petitioner wants to proceed. 10 Petitioner has two options at this point: (1) If Petitioner wants to proceed 11 in this Court via § 2254, he should file an amended petition with only those 12 claims that challenge the judgment of the Orange County Superior Court civilly 13 committing him. He may also include additional claims that challenge the civil 14 commitment judgment. All habeas challenges to a judgment must be included 15 in a single petition; (2) If Petitioner does not want to proceed on the claims that 16 can brought in habeas petition pursuant to § 2254, he may withdraw the 17 Petition in this Court. Doing so would be without prejudice to him filing any of 18 his claims as a civil-rights lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 in the district 19 in which he is confined. 20 As Petitioner decides how to proceed, the Court advises him of the 21 following: A habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenges a 22 criminal judgment. A judgment civilly committing an individual is technically a 23 civil judgment, but the Ninth Circuit has permitted individuals subject to such 24 judgment to challenge them via § 2254. E.g., Carty v. Nelson, 426 F.3d 1064, 25 1073, amended, 431 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2005); Felix v. Hennessey, 616 F. App’x 26 862, 863 (9th Cir. 2015). Federal habeas relief can only be granted if a conviction 27 or related judgment “violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 28 1 States.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991). A court may not grant federal 2 habeas relief solely because a state court decision violated state law, unless the 3 decision also violated federal law; that is, “federal habeas corpus relief does not 4 lie for errors of state law.” Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68 (citation omitted). Claims 5 relating to the ineffectiveness of counsel and other similar federal constitutional 6 violations are often raised via § 2254 petition. 7 While some of Petitioner’s claims could arguably be brought pursuant to 8 § 2254, others do not appear to raise challenges cognizable under that statute. 9 Some of Petitioner’s claims appear to allege that Petitioner’s constitutional or 10 other rights have been violated in custody. Examples of such claims include 11 claims relating to conditions of confinement, and whether a prison’s policies 12 infringe the constitutional right of access to the court. Petitioner cannot combine 13 claims challenging conditions of confinement with a habeas petition that 14 challenges the judgment civilly committing him—civil rights violations must be 15 alleged in a civil suit, not a habeas action, and must be filed in the district of 16 confinement. Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 & n. 1 (9th Cir. 1979) 17 (affirming dismissal of habeas petition because petition’s challenges to 18 conditions of confinement must be brought in civil rights action); see also 28 19 U.S.C. § 1983 (providing a vehicle for filing a civil suit where a person acting 20 under color of state law deprives another of rights secured by the federal 21 Constitution and law). In addition, any claim for which money damages are 22 sought must be raised in a civil suit; monetary damages cannot be sought in a 23 habeas petition. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973). 24 Some of Petitioner’s claims appear to relate to the underlying charge, and 25 not to the civil commitment proceeding. Challenges to Petitioner’s underlying 26 conviction would appear to be untimely, given that Petitioner’s conviction 27 28 1 occurred decades ago, and in any event should not be combined with a petition 2 that challenges a civil commitment judgment. 3 Other claims are simply incomprehensible, such that the Court cannot tell 4 what the basis of the claim is. Petitioner is warned that such claims are subject 5 to dismissal on that ground alone. See Clarke v. Shasta Cnty. Jail, No. 2:12-cv- 6 1565-DAD-P, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2012) (habeas petition subject to dismissal 7 where the allegations are “unintelligible and incomprehensible”). 8 Petitioner is therefore ORDERED to show cause—to explain—in writing 9 why the Court should not recommend dismissal of those claims that do not 10 clearly state a ground of relief that is cognizable in a federal habeas petition 11 pursuant to § 2254. No later than July 17, 2024, Petitioner shall respond, in 12 writing, to this Order. In his response, Petitioner must set forth his arguments, 13 if any, as to why his Petition, or claims in his Petition, should not be dismissed 14 for the reasons stated in this Order. In the alternative, Petitioner may submit 15 an Amended Petition limited to those claims that are cognizable on habeas 16 review pursuant to § 2254; such a petition will be deemed compliance with this 17 Order. Or, Petitioner may request to withdraw his Petition. 18 Petitioner’s failure to file a timely response to this Order may 19 result in the Court recommending to the assigned District Judge that 20 this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to follow court 21 orders. 22 The Court notes that the District Court for the Eastern District of 23 California re-characterized this Petition, which Petitioner claimed was brought 24 pursuant to § 2241 (Petition at 1), as one brought pursuant to § 2254. It does 25 not appear that the court advised Petitioner of the consequences of that choice, 26 pursuant to Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003). This Court does so 27 now: Petitioner is advised that Section 2254 requires a petitioner to raise all 28 1 || claims relating to a judgment in a single petition. Any second or subsequent 2 || petition filed pursuant to § 2254 and challenging the same judgment is subject 3 || to a higher standard—a standard that, in many cases, will be difficult, if not 4 || impossible, to meet. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Before the Court proceeds with 5 || Petitioner’s claim as construed by the Eastern District of California, the Court 6 || must offer Petition an opportunity to withdraw or amend his claim. Therefore, 7 || within the time set for responding to this Order (or any reasonable extension 8 || granted by this Court), Petitioner may withdraw his Petition, or he may 9 || amend his Petition to add additional claims. If he does not withdraw 10 || this Petition, any future petition challenging this judgment finding 11 || him to be an SVP will almost certainly be subject to the standard for 12 || second-or-successive petitions. Petitioner is further advised that a habeas 13 || petition—and each claim in an amended petition—must be filed within the time 14 |} limits set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Those time limits apply strictly. Thus, to 15 || the extent Petitioner intends to add claims, he must keep those deadlines in 16 || mind. 17 The Court cannot advise Petitioner how to proceed, but does advise 18 || Petitioner to consider all these statutes, and all applicable law, when deciding 19 || how to proceed with his case. 20 21 || DATED: June 17, 2024 EN f 23 BRIANNA FULLER MIRCHEFF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28