Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02063/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02063-0/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 

18cv2063-MMA (WVG) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KARL J. RUSSELL, JR., 

Petitioner,

v. 

DEBBIE ASUNCION, Warden, et. al., 

Respondents.

Case No.: 18cv2063-MMA (WVG) 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 

DENYING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS 

MOOT 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) Petitioner is currently confined at Mule Creek State Prison 

located in the Eastern District of California, and claims he was denied due process in 

connection to the confiscation of magazines while he was incarcerated at the California 

State Prison, Los Angeles County, which is located in the Central District of California, 

Western Division. (ECF No. 1 at 5, 12-21.) For the following reasons, the Petition is 

dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner to present his claim in a civil rights complaint in 

a District with proper venue, and the in forma pauperis motion is denied as moot. 

 A state prisoner’s claims either lie at “the core of habeas corpus” and are subject to 

the provisions of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), or they 

“challenge[] any other aspect of prison life” and are subject to the provisions of the Prison 

Case 3:18-cv-02063-MMA-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18cv2063-MMA (WVG) 

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

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and “must be brought, if at all, under § 1983.” Nettles v. 

Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 

U.S. 475, 487 (1973), and Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n.13 (2011). A court may 

construe a habeas petition which presents claims which do not lie at the core of habeas as 

a § 1983 action “after notifying and obtaining informed consent from the prisoner.” Id. at 

936 (“If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning it names the correct 

defendants and seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so long as 

it warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an 

opportunity for the litigant to withdraw or amend his or her complaint.”) 

 Petitioner claims that the confiscation of his magazines while he was housed at the 

California State Prison, Los Angeles County, violated federal due process because they did 

not contain “any type of nudity or issues that were not allowed because of content.” (ECF 

No. 1 at 5.) This claim does not lie within the core of habeas corpus because success on 

the merits would not “necessarily” have an effect on the duration of his confinement, and 

therefore the claim “must be brought, if at all, under § 1983.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 927. 

 Although the Court may construe a habeas petition which presents claims which do 

not lie at the core of habeas as a § 1983 action, “after notifying and obtaining informed 

consent from the prisoner,” the Court declines to so construe this action. See Nettles, 830 

F.3d at 936 (“If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning it names the 

correct defendants and seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so 

long as it warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an 

opportunity for the litigant to withdraw or amend his or her complaint.”) There are no 

allegations against the two named Respondents in this action (the California Attorney 

General and the Warden of the correctional institution where Petitioner is currently 

confined, not where he was confined at the time of the alleged unconstitutional action), and 

it is unclear who Petitioner seeks to hold personally responsible for the alleged denial of 

his federal due process rights. See e.g. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(“The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and 

Case 3:18-cv-02063-MMA-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv2063-MMA (WVG) 

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

responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have 

caused a constitutional deprivation.”), citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). 

Further, venue for such a § 1983 action appears to lie in the Central District of 

California, Western Division, where Petitioner was incarcerated when the magazines were 

allegedly confiscated, and not in the Southern District of California, where none of the 

events alleged in the petition occurred and where Petitioner does not reside. A “civil action 

may be brought in – (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants 

are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial district in which 

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a 

substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated[.]” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391(b); Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). 

The interests of justice do not counsel in favor of this Court construing this action as 

a § 1983 Complaint because venue over such an action does not lies in this District, and 

because it might expose Petitioner to the provisions of the PLRA, one of which provides 

that the entire $350 civil filing fee must be collected even if he qualifies to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. Bruce v. Samuels, 

577 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 627, 630 (2016). Accordingly, the Court declines to construe this 

action as a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 

936. 

This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend but without prejudice to 

Petitioner to seek relief in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where 

proper venue lies. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 6, 2018 

Hon. Michael M. Anello 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-02063-MMA-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3