Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01062/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01062-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY ATTERBURY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1062 LKK DAD P

vs.

DAVE GRAZAINI, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, an inmate of a state mental hospital, has filed a pro se petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis. The in forma pauperis application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915

and will be granted.

The court must examine a habeas petition to determine whether the respondents

should be ordered to file a response to the petition. Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases in

the District Courts The court may not order a response if it plainly appears from the petition that

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. Id.

On the first page of the form petition filed on May 27, 2005, petitioner alleges that

the judgment of conviction under attack was entered in the El Dorado County Superior Court in

1989. Petitioner alleges additional facts concerning his 1989 conviction but concludes the first

Case 2:05-cv-01062-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 06/08/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

page with the statement, “This involves orders made after judgment affecting my substantial

rights.” On the second page of the form, petitioner reiterates that “This current petition involves

orders made after judgment affecting my rights,” refers to an “attached typed comprehensive

explanation,” and indicates that he has a habeas action pending in this court, case No. CIV S-03-

1809 GEB DAD P, which he describes as having “other different issues.” On the third page of

the form, petitioner alleges that “This has been to the State Court of Appeal and the State

Supreme Court, respectively (C004471 & S118391).” On subsequent pages of the form,

petitioner identifies his first ground for relief as “Violations of the Americans With Disabilities

Act, & my 1st, 5th, 6th, 8th, & 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution” and indicates “Please

see Attached” in the spaces where grounds two, three, and four are to be alleged. Petitioner

alleges no supporting facts on the form.

Attached to the form petition is a typed document titled “Attachment to Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Americans With Disabilities Act and/or § 1983 Complaint

Form.” The attachment consists of 15 numbered pages bearing three headings. The first heading

is “Nature of the Matter,” the second is “Facts of the Current Matter,” and the third, numbered

“IV,” is “Request for Relief.” Petitioner seeks “federal court intervention, and relief from an

unconstitutional and potentially dangerous and looming situation.” (Pet., Attach. at 1.) He

complains of “perpetual violations” of his rights by a state-appointed attorney and a state court

judge “who will not recuse themselves” despite petitioner’s objections to their “paternalistic

position” on his case.” (Id.) Petitioner alleges that he raised “this ‘paternalistic’ issue” in state

court petitions and explained to the California Supreme Court that he

has been trying, off and on, for years to remove a California

Superior Court Judge (Judge Keller of the El Dorado County

Superior Court) from presiding over his case, and he has also been

trying, off and off [sic] to get an appointed attorney (Mr. Adam

Weiner) to get off his case, and he does not want Mr. Weiner

representing him on anything.

(Id., Attach. at 2.) Petitioner further explained to the California Supreme Court that he wants

Case 2:05-cv-01062-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 06/08/05 Page 2 of 5
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

1

 On May 13, 2005, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations in case No. CIV

S-03-1809 GEB DAD P, recommending that petitioner’s motion for emergency injunctive relief be

denied because petitioner sought injunctive relief against entities or persons not parties to that action

and because that action concerns only petitioner’s 1989 plea and conviction. Petitioner was advised

to raise his concerns about medical and psychiatric care at the county jail with his appointed counsel

and, if appropriate, to pursue remedies in state court or in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§1983.

3

Judge Keller and Mr. Weiner removed from his case “because they keep playing a paternalistic

role, rather than an advocacy role in all the proceedings that I am entitled to or request” and

“apparently believe the mental hospital is the best place for me to stay.” (Id.) Petitioner states

that he also raised “this paternalistic issue” in case No. CIV S-03-1809 GEB DAD P but relief

was denied.1 (Id.)

Petitioner states that on May 3, 2005, he received a telephone call from Adam

Weiner, who informed petitioner that the district attorney had filed a recommitment petition on

April 30, 2005, requesting that the court extend petitioner’s commitment to Napa State Hospital

for two years, that Mr. Weiner had been appointed to represent petitioner and would be meeting

with petitioner to discuss a defense to the petition, and that a hearing had been set for June 10,

2005. (Id., Attach. at 3.) Petitioner describes past proceedings in the El Dorado County Superior

Court and complains of conditions of confinement during transport to and confinement in the

county jail. (Id., Attach. at 3-14.) Petitioner seeks the following relief in this court:

Therefore, please examine this matter, please recuse the

ElDorado [sic] County Superior Court from hearing my case,

please recuse attorney Adam Weiner from my case, please allow

me a change of venue to a superior court in a county closer to the

mental institution, and please order that I NOT BE HOUSED IN

THE ELDORADO [sic] COUNTY JAIL FOR ANYTHING NOW

OR EVER IN THE FUTURE. And please order and/or grant any

other and further relief appropriate to these situations.

(Id., Attach. at 15.)

Federal courts “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf

of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in

Case 2:05-cv-01062-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 06/08/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §

2254(a) (emphasis added). Thus, federal habeas corpus relief is available only for challenges to

the duration or legality of a prisoner’s confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500

(1973). A state prisoner who seeks to challenge unconstitutional conditions of confinement may

challenge those conditions in federal court only by presenting them in a civil rights action

properly brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Concurrently with this habeas action, petitioner filed a civil rights action

concerning his medical and psychiatric care. See case No. CIV S-05-1059 FCD DAD P. By

order filed June 3, 2005, that action has been transferred to the United States District Court for

the Northern District of California, where venue is proper. Petitioner’s claims concerning

conditions of confinement at Napa State Hospital must be pursued in that civil rights action. 

Claims concerning conditions of confinement in the El Dorado County Jail, if any such claims

have been exhausted, should be presented in a civil rights action naming as defendants the

persons responsible for those conditions.

Petitioner has filed and is proceeding with a federal habeas case attacking his

1989 plea and conviction. See case No. CIV S-03-1809 GEB DAD P. All issues relating to the

1989 plea and conviction must be raised in that action. To the extent that petitioner is seeking

federal court intervention in pending state court proceedings that may affect his custody in the

future, this habeas action is premature. Petitioner must await the final judgment of the trial court

and exhaust state court remedies before coming to federal court.

If petitioner wishes to challenge a state court order or judgment other than his

1989 conviction and other than the current state court proceedings, he must identify the specific

order or judgment under attack and allege properly exhausted grounds for relief arising from that

order or judgment. Petitioner’s habeas petition will be dismissed with leave to file an amended

petition in which he attacks a specific state court judgment, such as a previous recommitment

order, and alleging specific federal claims related to that order. Petitioner may allege only claims

Case 2:05-cv-01062-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 06/08/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

that were fairly presented to the California Supreme Court as federal claims. Petitioner must

omit from the amended petition any claims concerning his 1989 plea and conviction, as well as

any claims arising from pending state court proceedings.

If petitioner chooses to file an amended petition, he must submit the pleading on a

habeas petition form and answer all questions on the form. On the first page, petitioner must

identify the state court order or judgment under attack and answer all questions in the context of

that order or judgment. Petitioner must state all grounds for relief on the form itself and must

provide a brief summary of facts supporting each ground for relief. Petitioner may attach a

memorandum of points and authorities in which he offers argument concerning his claims, but

the memorandum cannot serve as a substitute for the required statement of grounds for relief and

supporting facts on the form. In order to demonstrate exhaustion of all grounds for relief alleged

in the amended petition, petitioner shall attach to the amended petition a copy of the state habeas

petition in which he presented his grounds for relief to the California Supreme Court.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s May 27, 2005 application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus filed May 27, 2005, is dismissed with

leave to amend;

3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended

petition that complies in all respects with this order; and

4. Petitioner’s failure to file an amended petition that complies with this order

will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: June 8, 2005.

DAD:13

atte1062.115

Case 2:05-cv-01062-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 06/08/05 Page 5 of 5