Williams v. Key

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: September 27, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00081
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Sep 27, 2022 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 KIRK WILLIAMS, 10 2:22-CV-00081-SAB Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS 12 ACTION

13 JAMES KEY, 14 Respondent. 15

16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner Kirk Williams’ First Amended Petition 18 received on August 1, 2022. ECF No. 11. Petitioner, a prisoner at the Airway 19 Heights Corrections Center is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 20 Respondent has not been served in this action. 21 Along with the First Amended Petition, Mr. Williams filed the Order 22 directing him to amend his petition. ECF No. 11 at 2–11. It was not necessary for 23 him to do so. The Court has access to its own records. 24 Petitioner indicates that he is bringing his First Amended Petition “under 28 25 U.S.C. § 2241.” ECF No. 11 at 1. As previously instructed, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the 26 exclusive avenue for a state prisoner to challenge the constitutionality of his 27 detention. White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1007 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on 28 other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), 1 overruled on other grounds by Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011). Petitioner 2 did, however, present his First Amended Petition on a form Petitioner Under 28 3 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody. ECF No. 4 11 at 12–27. 5 By this action, Petitioner challenges a disciplinary infraction that resulted in 6 a sanction of five days of cell confinement in November 2019. See ECF No. 11 at 7 37. Although Petitioner asserts “loss liberty interest in loss goodtime credit[]s, loss 8 Program treatment, loss classification, loss of Pro social living Community and the 9 loss of working at Optical,” ECF No. 11 at 20, he has presented no facts in the 10 First Amended Petition from which the Court could infer that the disciplinary 11 action affected the fact or duration of his confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 12 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973), overruled on other grounds by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 13 U.S. 477, 482 (1994). While Petitioner indicates there was “earned time not 14 earned,” ECF No. 11 at 51–55, he has presented no facts from which the Court 15 could infer that he was sanctioned with the loss of Good Time credits already 16 earned. See id. at 55. 17 A prisoner seeking to expunge a disciplinary charge where “a successful 18 challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence” 19 cannot bring a habeas petition. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 20 2003). Although granted the opportunity to do so, Petitioner has presented no facts 21 from which the Court could infer that the 2019 disciplinary action affected the 22 length of his confinement. Liberally construing the First Amended Petition in the 23 light most favorable to Mr. Williams, the Court finds that he has failed to state a 24 claim upon which this Court could grant relief. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s Order to 2|| Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis and Order to Amend Petition, ECF No. 5, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: l. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 4 5|| of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. See Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1109 (9th Cir. 1983) (“Rule 4 explicitly allows a district court to dismiss summarily the petition on the merits when no 8|| claim for relief is stated”). 9 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE the file. 11 3. The Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith and there is no basis upon 13|| which to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. 14)| P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order 16|| and provide copies to Petitioner at his last known address. 17 DATED this 27th day of September 2022. 18 19 20 21 kyl etna 33 Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28