Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01093/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01093-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED ,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE HOSPITALS- COALINGA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01093-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT PETITION BE DISMISSED FOR 

LACK OF JURISDICTION

ECF No. 1

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE AND 

SEND PETITIONER A § 1983 COMPLAINT 

FORM

Petitioner Richard Scott Kindred, a civil detainee without counsel, petitioned for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the court for 

preliminary review. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must 

examine the habeas corpus petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” 

that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 

2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). At this early stage, Rule 4 gives 

“courts an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions.” Ross v. 

Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

Case 1:19-cv-01093-DAD-JDP Document 6 Filed 01/29/20 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

27

28

2

Discussion 

Here, petitioner alleges that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by 

the staff at his place of confinement, Coalinga State Hospital. See ECF No. 1 at 3. Petitioner

specifically alleges that hospital staff (1) falsified information about him in a 2010 meeting, (2)

inaccurately reported the results of a 2014 medical test, and (3) confiscated his religious clothing

on an unknown date. Id. Petitioner unsuccessfully presented the first of these grievances, that the 

staff falsified information about him, to the state administrative appeal board. That grievance was 

denied at the highest level of administrative review available on November 13, 2013. Id. at 100.

We recommend that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. First, petitioner has 

not shown that his petition is timely under federal habeas filing deadlines. Absent statutory or 

equitable tolling, petitions for habeas relief must be filed within one year of “the date on which 

the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for 

seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Here, petitioner’s final administrative review was 

denied over seven years ago and he has failed to show that he is eligible for statutory or equitable 

tolling. 

Second, petitioner has failed to show that he has exhausted all his claims for relief 

administratively before filing his federal petition. A petitioner is required to provide the state 

with the opportunity to rule on his federal habeas claims before presenting those claims to the 

federal courts. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). Petitioner has failed to show he 

exhausted his claims of the false medical report and confiscation of his religious clothing.

Finally, petitioner has failed to state a cognizable habeas claim. Under § 2254, a writ of 

habeas corpus is available to prisoners challenging the fact or duration of their confinement. See 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). In contrast, if a favorable judgment for the 

petitioner would not “necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement,” the 

court lacks jurisdiction under this provision. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935-37 (9th 

Cir. 2016). Success on petitioner’s claims would not necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier 

release. 

Case 1:19-cv-01093-DAD-JDP Document 6 Filed 01/29/20 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

27

28

3

Because petitioner has failed to state a cognizable habeas claim, we next consider whether 

to convert the petition into a § 1983 complaint. “[R]equests for relief turning on circumstances of 

confinement may be presented in a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 action.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 

749, 750 (2004). “If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that 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.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 

(remanding case to district court to consider claim under § 1983). When filing a § 1983 claim, 

courts require plaintiffs to “plead that (1) the defendants acting under color of state law (2) 

deprived plaintiffs of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes.” Gibson v. United 

States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, 

“within the meaning of § 1983, ‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative 

act, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of 

which complaint is made.’” Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 

(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). There is no 

respondeat superior liability—i.e., liability of a supervisor for acts of a supervisee. Each 

defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 

(2009).

We decline to convert the petition into a § 1983 complaint for two reasons. First, the 

complaint is not amenable to conversion on its face. Petitioner’s allegations about the hospital’s 

actions are too conclusory to state a § 1983 claim, and petitioner has named only the institution as 

the respondent; petitioner has not named the people who directly committed the affirmative acts 

or omissions that violated his rights. Second, conversion may be unfair to petitioner. The filing 

fee for a habeas petition is $5, and if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the fee is 

forgiven. For civil rights cases, however, the filing fee is $350 plus an administrative fee of $50. 

Under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, the prisoner is required to pay the $350 filing fee, even 

if he is granted in forma pauperis status, by way of deductions from the prisoner’s trust account.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). If we were to convert this action to a § 1983 action, the petitioner 

Case 1:19-cv-01093-DAD-JDP Document 6 Filed 01/29/20 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

27

28

4

would face the larger filing and administrative fees—and he might prefer not to file a § 1983 

claim, considering the higher fees. 

While we decline to convert the petition, we note that petitioner is free to file a § 1983 

complaint. A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Iqbal, 556 at 678. If the 

allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the 

complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” 

Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what 

plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to 

relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) 

(citations omitted). The complaint must state what actions each named defendant took that 

deprived plaintiff of constitutional or other federal rights. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Order

The clerk’s office is directed to send petitioner a § 1983 complaint form. The clerk of 

court is directed to assign this case to a district judge who will review the findings and 

recommendations. 

Findings and Recommendations

We recommend that the court dismiss the petition and decline to issue a certificate of 

appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for 

the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, we submit the findings and 

recommendations to the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the case. Within fourteen days 

of the service of the findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections to the 

findings and recommendations. That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the 

findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Case 1:19-cv-01093-DAD-JDP Document 6 Filed 01/29/20 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

27

28

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:19-cv-01093-DAD-JDP Document 6 Filed 01/29/20 Page 5 of 5