Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00364/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00364-5/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAMUEL SARMIENTO, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RONALD RACKLEY, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-0364 KJM CKD P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On September 3, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations and respondent has filed a reply. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court 

finds the findings to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. For the reasons set forth 

in this order, however, the court declines to adopt the recommendation that this action be 

dismissed. 

Case 2:15-cv-00364-KJM-CKD Document 19 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 3
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

 By this action, petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary conviction for possession of 

dangerous contraband (a cell phone and charger), for which he lost ninety days of credits. This 

action is proceeding on petitioner’s claim that his due process rights were violated because there 

is not “some evidence” to support the disciplinary conviction. For the reasons set forth in the 

findings and recommendations, in accordance with the decision in Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d 

992 (9th Cir. 2015), this court lacks habeas corpus jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim because he 

has not yet received a parole date and, therefore, success on his claim would not “necessarily 

spell speedier release” from custody. ECF No. 16 at 3. 

 The absence of habeas corpus jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim, however, is not the end 

of the matter. Petitioner’s claim may be cognizable in an action under 42 U.S.C. §1983, see, e.g., 

Pratt v. Hedrick, 2015 WL 3880383 (N.D. Cal. 2015), and this court may so construe this action. 

See Stephens v. Davis, 2015 WL 6093101 (N.D.Cal. 2015) (citing Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 

U.S. 249, 251 (1971)). Because construing this action as a civil rights action would obligate 

petitioner for the full amount of the $350 filing fee for such an action even if petitioner proceeds 

in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 19151, the court will give petitioner an opportunity to 

determine in the first instance whether he wants to pursue his claim as a civil rights claim under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 Petitioner will be granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to 

file and serve a civil rights complaint on the form provided with this order and, as appropriate, 

either the balance of the filing fee ($345.00) or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

///// 

 

1

 Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee for this action. In order to proceed with this action as a civil 

rights action, petitioner will be required to either remit $345.00 as full payment of the filing fee 

for a civil rights action, or to file a completed in forma pauperis application. 

2

 The Stephens court also identified issue preclusion and claim preclusion as possible barriers to 

litigating claims initially raised as habeas corpus claims in a civil rights action. See Stephens, slip 

op. at 2. Here, respondent argues that petitioner failed to exhaust state court remedies for his due 

process claim; it appears it is respondent’s position that petitioner’s claim was not adjudicated on 

the merits in the state courts. In order to have preclusive effect, the prior state court decision 

must have rested on the merits of petitioner’s claims. See Gonzales v. California Department of 

Corrections, 739 F.3d 1226, 1230-31 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussing issue and claim preclusive 

effects of prior state court habeas corpus judgments). 

Case 2:15-cv-00364-KJM-CKD Document 19 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Failure to file a civil rights complaint will result in the dismissal of this action for lack of habeas 

corpus jurisdiction. 

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

 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 3, 2015, are adopted in part; 

 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is granted in part; 

 3. The court lacks habeas corpus jurisdiction over petitioner’s due process claim; 

 4. Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition is dismissed; 

 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form civil rights 

complaint and accompanying instructions together with an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915; 

 6. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to submit an 

amended complaint on the form provided with this order and, as appropriate, an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis or $345.00. Should petitioner choose to file an amended complaint, 

the amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the 

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; failure to file an 

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 

DATED: January 7, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-00364-KJM-CKD Document 19 Filed 01/07/16 Page 3 of 3