Tremayne Carroll v. Jared Lozano

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 1, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-08519
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TREMAYNE CARROLL, ) CASE NO. LA CV 19-8519-VBF (PJW) ) 11 Petitioner, ) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING 12 v. ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ) 13 WARDEN JARED LOZANO, ET AL., ) ) 14 Respondents. ) ) 15 16 In April 1999, Petitioner was convicted in Los Angeles County 17 Superior Court of grand theft and sentenced to 25 years to life. (See 18 Carroll v. State of California, CV 03-9002-SJO, March 30, 2006 Report 19 and Recommendation at 4.) In December 2003, he filed a habeas corpus 20 petition in this court, which was denied in February 2008. (Carroll 21 v. State of California, CV 03-9002-SJO, February 5, 2008 Order.) In 22 April 2009, his application for permission to file an appeal was 23 denied by the Ninth Circuit. In September 2019, Petitioner filed the 24 instant habeas petition, in which he appears to challenge his 1999 25 life sentence as well as the conditions of his current confinement.1 26 27 1 In 2017, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the state court’s denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to 28 state Proposition 36, which the Court denied without prejudice for failure to exhaust. (Tremayne v. State of California, CV 17-878-SJO 1 Upon screening the petition, it was clear that his claims were 2 either unexhausted or not cognizable in federal habeas corpus 3 proceedings. As a result, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, 4 giving Petitioner an opportunity to explain why his case should not be 5 dismissed. Petitioner filed a response, in which he alleged that he 6 has been falsely labeled a sex offender in prison and has been 7 subjected to various types of mistreatment as a result, including 8 sexual assault. For the following reasons, the Petition is dismissed 9 without prejudice. 10 Petitioner has raised six claims. In claims one through four, he 11 contends that he should not have been sentenced as a three-striker in 12 1999 because two of his prior strikes were incurred in one juvenile 13 conviction and because the Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama, 567 14 U.S. 460 (2012), barred mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles. 15 (Petition at 5.) He also contends that he is entitled to relief under 16 California Senate Bill 1437, which was signed into law in September 17 2018, because he was convicted as an aider-and-abettor. (Petition at 18 5.) Additionally, he contends that his petition for re-sentencing 19 pursuant to Proposition 36 was improperly denied based on “false 20 sexual allegations” and “falsified prison RVRs” and that he was denied 21 his right to a fair and impartial Proposition 57 hearing. (Petition 22 at 6.) 23 A search of the California appellate website, at 24 appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov, reveals, however, that Petitioner has 25 failed to present any of these grounds for relief to the California 26 Supreme Court, which is a prerequisite to pursuing these claims in 27 28 (PJW), March 17, 2017 Order.) 2 1 federal court.2 See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842, 844-45 2 (1999); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-22 (1982); 28 U.S.C. 3 § 2254(b)(1). 4 In his fifth and sixth claims, Petitioner contends that the 5 prison’s monitoring of interactions between him and medical staff 6 violates his right to confidentiality under the Health Insurance 7 Portability and Accountability Act and that the prison has retaliated 8 against his reporting of prison employee sexual misconduct by 9 subjecting him to administrative segregation and “physical/sexual 10 abuse and/or harassment” by prison staff. (Petition at 7, 8.) These 11 claims do not go to the propriety of Petitioner’s incarceration or 12 sentence but, instead, the conditions of his confinement. Petitioner 13 can only raise them in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 14 § 1983. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858-59 (9th Cir. 15 2003) (“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, 16 where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not 17 necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”). For this reason, 18 claims five and six are dismissed without prejudice to raising them in 19 a civil rights complaint.3 20 21 22 2 It appears that in October 2015 Petitioner appealed the lower 23 court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Proposition 36 and thereafter filed a petition for review in the California Supreme 24 Court, which was denied in October 2017. The Court of Appeal’s decision denying his claims shows, however, that he did not raise any 25 of the instant claims in those proceedings. See People v. Carroll, 26 2017 WL 3224855 (Cal. Ct. App. July 31, 2017). 27 3 The allegations of abuse while in prison that Petitioner sets forth in his Response to the Order to Show Cause must also be raised, 28 if it all, in a civil rights complaint. 3 1 Because Petitioner has not presented claims one through four to the California Supreme Court, it follows that the Petition is entirely unexhausted and is subject to dismissal on that basis. See Rasberry Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). Further, the Court 5} finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial 6]/of a constitutional right or that the Court erred in its procedural 7 ||} ruling and, therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 10} 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: June 1, 2020 ; Vblevie bebe fevbarte 15 TE VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28