Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02332/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02332-0/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

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ~ 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ONTIVERSO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

M. MARTEL, et al.

Respondents.

NO. CV-08-2332-RHW

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Ct. Rec.

1). Petitioner is an inmate at the Mule Creek State Prison, in Ione, California. In

his petition, Petitioner raises three grounds for relief: (1) the state court misapplied

procedural bar against Petitioner, not allowing due process; (2) Petitioner had his

constitutional rights violated by the prison correctional counselor; (3) Petitioner’s

constitutional rights were violated during the appeals process. Petitioner also seeks

appointment of counsel. Petitioner has filed an application to proceed in forma

pauperis (Ct. Rec. 2).

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is

unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner filed this action on October 2, 2008. In his petition, Petitioner did

not list the name and location of the court under which the judgment of conviction is

under attack, or the date of judgment of conviction, or the length of sentence. 

Rather it appears that Petitioner is attacking a 128 Chrono that was placed in his

Case 2:08-cv-02332-RHW Document 10 Filed 03/03/10 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

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ~ 2

file. 

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the

petitioner can show that “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution....” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to

challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573,

574 (9th Cir.1991), quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973);

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method

for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v.

Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42(1991); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Here, Petitioner is not challenging the legality of his conviction, a parole

proceeding, or other adjudication that has led to his current incarceration. He has

not alleged that he has lost any time credits. Instead, Petitioner is seeking a remedy

for what he believes are constitutional violations. Thus, the proper avenue to seek

redress is through a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

The Court will construe Petitioner’s habeas petition as a complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1915A, the Court must review the complaint to identify cognizable

claims, or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;

or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. Each of Petitioner’s claims will be reviewed under this standard.

(1) State Court Misapplied Procedural Bar

Based on the filing accompanying Petitioner’s complaint, it appears that

Petitioner filed a habeas petition in Amador County Superior Court in September

27, 2007, and May 1, 2008. Petitioner also filed a Petition with the Third Appellate

District Court and with the Supreme Court of California. The petitions were

Case 2:08-cv-02332-RHW Document 10 Filed 03/03/10 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

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ~ 3

summarily denied.

In his first claim, Petitioner states that he sought a state court remedy against

an arbitrarily written CDC 128 Chrono. Petitioner alleges that the state courts

refused Petition redress and unjustly barred him from “due process” without being

heard on the merits of the facts. 

A federal district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a

direct appeal from the final judgment of a state court. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148,

1154 (2003). To the extent that Claim 1 is a de facto appeal from the state court’s

judgment denying Petitioner relief, this court does not have subject matter

jurisdiction to hear the claim. Petitioner’s claim also fails because to the extent he

seeks to have obtained damages as a result of the state court’s actions, Petitioner

has failed to name the state court participants as Defendants. Moreover, judicial

officers are entitled to absolute immunity. See Brown v. California Dept. of

Corrections, 554 F.3d 747, 750 (9 Cir. 2009). Claim 1 is dismissed for failure to th

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

(2) Retaliation 

Petitioner argues that his prison counselor took direct retaliatory action

against Petitioner by delaying the appeal response; by placing Petitioner before the

prison psychologist; and causing Petitioner to be put under the threat of a prison

transfer.

In order to establish a claim for retaliation in the prison context, Petitioner

must allege (1) that a state actor took some adverse action against him; (2) because

of (3) his protected conduct; and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of

his First Amendment rights; and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a

legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9 Cir. 2005). 

th

Here, Petitioner has not identified the prison official who allegedly violated his

constitutional rights. As such, Claim 2 is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted.

Case 2:08-cv-02332-RHW Document 10 Filed 03/03/10 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

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ~ 4

(3) Appeal Violations

In lieu of providing supporting facts, Petitioner directs the Court to the Third

Appellate District Court of Appeal Writ and the supporting facts. It is not clear the

nature and extent of this claim. For the reasons stated above, the Court dismisses

claim 3 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

(4) Request for Counsel

The Court denies to grant Petitioner’s request for counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Court construes Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Ct.

Rec. 1) as a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and dismisses the complaint,

without prejudice.

2. Petitioner’s Request for Appointment of Counsel (Ct. Rec. 3, 9) is

DENIED.

3. Petitioner’s Application to Proceed IFP (Ct. Rec. 2) is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this

Order, forward copies to Petitioner, and close the file.

DATED this 2 day of March, 2010. nd

s/Robert H. Whaley

ROBERT H. WHALEY

 United States District Judge

C:\WINDOWS\Temp\notes101AA1\dismiss.wpd

Case 2:08-cv-02332-RHW Document 10 Filed 03/03/10 Page 4 of 4