Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00566/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00566-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD JOSE DUPREE,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA and CDCR,

Respondents.

No. 1:15-cv-00566-SKO HC

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION

(Doc. 7)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 On August 24, 2015, the Court screened the petition in 

compliance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and dismissed the petition 

with leave to amend. On September 10, 2015, Petitioner filed objections to the Court's screening 

and declined to amend the petition.

The screening order permitted Petitioner to amend the petition to (1) name as respondent 

the person having custody of Petitioner as required by Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing 2254 

Cases, and (2) to revise his first ground for relief which sought removal of the Fresno County 

District Attorney, relief that is not available in a habeas corpus action. Petitioner declines to 

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:15-cv-00566-SKO Document 8 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

name the warden of the institution in which he is presently confined, contending, "There's no 

need to name a particular officer . . . . only need to name the organization." Doc. 7 at 1. 

Petitioner cites Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971), in support of the propriety of naming the "particular organization for whatever crimes 

they've committed against one's person." Id. 

Similarly, Petitioner rejects the Court's suggestion that in ground one of the petition, he 

intended to claim that he was wrongfully sentenced, restating that his intent to secure removal of 

the Fresno County District Attorney for her violations of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to 

the U.S. Constitution.

Bivens applies to federal prisoners. A state prisoner's challenges to the conditions of 

prison life are properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 

142 (1991). A plaintiff may not seek both habeas and § 1983 relief in a single action. See Heck 

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 498-99 n. 15; Young v. Kenny, 

907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub nom Bressman v. Farrier, 498 U.S. 1126 (1991); 

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. It does not 

appear that Petitioner seeks relief from conditions of confinement; however, neither is this action

properly categorized only as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

A federal petition for writ of habeas corpus concerns whether a petitioner is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). "Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a 

state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or 

speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of § 1983." Preiser

v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-89 (1973). Although portions of the petition seek reversal of 

Petitioner's 2002 convictions for murder, attempted murder, and assault, Petitioner also seeks 

///

Case 1:15-cv-00566-SKO Document 8 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

dismissal of the Fresno County District Attorney and declines to comply with the procedural 

requirements of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Petitioner refuses to amend his petition, requesting that the Court dismiss the petition and 

grant him a certificate of appealability to allow him to pursue his claims in the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. While the Court will dismiss the petition, it declines to issue a certificate of 

appealability. 

Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a 

certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 

2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to 

review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which 

the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a 

proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another 

district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a 

criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of 

such person's detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals 

from—

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in 

which the detention complained of arises out of 

process issued by a State court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph 

(1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 

indicate which specific issues or issues satisfy the showing required 

by paragraph (2).

Case 1:15-cv-00566-SKO Document 8 Filed 09/24/15 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability 

"if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims 

or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Although the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate 

"something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . 

part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court's 

determination that Petitioner is not entitled to proceed in a federal habeas corpus action debatable, 

wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Accordingly, the Court declines to 

issue a certificate of appealability.

Conclusion and Order

The Court hereby DISMISSES without prejudice the petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for lack of jurisdiction. The Court declines to issue a certificate of 

appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00566-SKO Document 8 Filed 09/24/15 Page 4 of 4