Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01620/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01620-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

“A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him

or her as the respondent to the petition. This person typically is the warden of the facility in

which the petitioner is incarcerated. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th

Cir.1992).” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule

2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Failure to name the petitioner's custodian as a respondent deprives

federal courts of personal jurisdiction. Id.; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989). 

In the instant action, petitioner has improperly named Placer County Superior Court as

respondent. Petitioner is cautioned that he should in future name the proper respondent. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH CERVANTES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1620 DFL GGH P

vs.

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.1 ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a document entitled

“petition for writ of mandate.” He appears to have been using a state court form for his

application. Petitioner contends that his rights were violated as a result of a “broken” plea

agreement in Placer County Superior Court. He states that a weapons charge was added to a

Sacramento County case in violation, inter alia, of his constitutional due process rights. 

Petitioner alleges that he has been denied good time and half time credits due to the error. He

Case 2:05-cv-01620-DFL-GGH Document 8 Filed 10/13/05 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

2

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

also seeks money damages. Subsequent to this filing, petitioner indicated that on August 23,

2005, Placer County Superior Court admitted that there had been mistakes made in adding the

extra charge to abstracts of judgment and the court was working on correcting the mistakes. 

Petitioner does not include any such communication and claims that he is still being denied good

time credits because of the error. He seeks money damages as well.

Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related

to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2254,

and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. 

1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1983. Challenges to the validity of

any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the

province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,

500, 93 S.Ct. 1827[] (1973); requests for relief turning on

circumstances of confinement may be presented in a 1983 action.

Some cases are hybrids, with a prisoner seeking relief unavailable

in habeas, notably damages, but on allegations that not only

support a claim for recompense, but imply the invalidity either of

an underlying conviction or of a particular ground for denying

release short of serving the maximum term of confinement. 

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749, 750-751, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004) (per curiam).

In this case, petitioner seeks both restoration of time credits and money damages.

Although petitioner asserts that the state superior court has admitted error and is seeking to

correct it, he has not yet provided the supporting evidence. To the extent petitioner wishes to

have his good time credits restored, he must proceed by way of an application for writ of habeas

corpus. To the extent he seeks money damages, petitioner must, as plaintiff, file an action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Petitioner’s present “petition for writ of mandate” will be

dismissed and he will be granted leave to file a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or a civil

rights action under § 1983 within 30 days. 

Petitioner is cautioned that exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to

the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to

be waived, it must be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).2 A

Case 2:05-cv-01620-DFL-GGH Document 8 Filed 10/13/05 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

3

waiver of exhaustion, thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion

requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all

claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971);

Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

If petitioner files a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this action seeking

restoration of good time credits, but also wishes to pursue a claim for money damages, he must

separately file an action for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Petitioner is admonished

that “[i]n Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), we [the

Supreme Court] held that where success in a prisoner's §1983 damages action would implicitly

question the validity of conviction or duration of sentence, the litigant must first achieve

favorable termination of his available state, or federal habeas, opportunities to challenge the

underlying conviction or sentence.” Muhammad v. Close, supra, at 751, 124 S.Ct. at 1304. 

Although petitioner purports to have received word that the state court has admitted error, he

must show evidence of a reversal of the judgment in order to proceed in a § 1983 action for

money damages.

If petitioner elects not to proceed in this case on a habeas corpus petition, he may

file a civil rights action in this, and not a separate, case and this action will be re-designated as

one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (As noted, if he intends to proceed on an application

for writ of habeas corpus in this case, he must separately file a civil rights action for money

damages). 

The Clerk of the Court will provide petitioner with the appropriate forms. The

Clerk of the Court will also provide petitioner with an application to proceed in forma pauperis

or he must pay the required filing fee for a habeas application ($5.00) or for a civil rights action

($250), as appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). Petitioner will be provided the

opportunity either to submit the appropriate affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma

pauperis or to submit the appropriate filing fee for the chosen action.

Case 2:05-cv-01620-DFL-GGH Document 8 Filed 10/13/05 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The “petition for writ of mandate” is dismissed with leave granted for

petitioner, within 30 days, to file either an application for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, or a civil rights action, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; if petitioner elects to proceed as a

plaintiff in this case under § 1983, this action will be re-designated as a civil rights action;

2. If petitioner seeks to proceed with an application for writ of habeas corpus in

this action for restoration of time credits, but also wishes to seek money damages, he must file a

separate civil rights action with his claim for money damages;

3. Petitioner must also submit the appropriate affidavit in support of a request to

proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing fee for the action with which he elects to

proceed herein, as set forth above, within 30 days.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with an application to

proceed in forma pauperis and with a form for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 and a form for filing a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

DATED: 10/13/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

cerv1620.ord

Case 2:05-cv-01620-DFL-GGH Document 8 Filed 10/13/05 Page 4 of 4