Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01365/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01365-0/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

RODNEY KARL BLACKWELL,

Petitioner,

v.

J.T. CANO and DAVE DAVEY, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:16-cv-01365-AWI-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT THE COURT DISMISS 

THE PETITION FOR FAILURE 

TO STATE A CLAIM COGNIZABLE 

IN HABEAS CORPUS

Screening Order

Petitioner Rodney Karl Blackwell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner contends that his right to due 

process was violated by the cancellation of his grievance for failure to cooperate with the officer 

hearing Petitioner’s claim that his property (various foodstuffs) was wrongly confiscated.

I. Preliminary Screening

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 

plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the 

Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Case 1:16-cv-01365-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 10/25/16 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

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears 

that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 

440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

II. Petition States a Claim Properly Addressed in Proceedings Under § 1983

"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). 

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). 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 types of 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.

Petitioner seeks redress for violations of his Due Process rights in the course of an 

administrative grievance and subsequent habeas proceedings in California State Courts in which 

Petitioner alleged his property was wrongly confiscated and sought compensation or the 

property’s return. As such, this claim is in the nature of a civil rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and does not concern the fact or duration of petitioner’s confinement nor seek immediate 

or speedier release. 

Because Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, the Court must dismiss his 

habeas corpus petition. Petitioner may pursue his claims by filing a civil rights complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

///

Case 1:16-cv-01365-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 10/25/16 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

III. 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).

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 

///

Case 1:16-cv-01365-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 10/25/16 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

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

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

Reasonable jurists would not find the Court's determination that Petitioner is not entitled 

to pursue federal habeas corpus relief to be debatable or wrong, or conclude that the issues 

presented required further adjudication. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 

appealability.

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

The undersigned recommends that the Court (1) dismiss the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus since it does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus relief, and 

(2) decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C ' 636(b)(1). Within thirty 

(30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, either party may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate 

Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Replies to the objections, if any, shall be served and 

filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure

to file objections within the specified time may constitute waiver of the right to appeal the District 

Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 ((9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01365-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 10/25/16 Page 4 of 4