Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01861/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01861-0/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 - 09cv1861

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND MEDINA, Civil No. 09CV1861-MMA (POR)

Petitioner, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THAT PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS BE DISMISSED

AND RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS DENIED AS MOOT

[Document No. 6]

[Document No. 11]

v.

R. HERNANDEZ, Warden, et al.

Respondents.

I. INTRODUCTION

 On August 26, 2009, petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (“petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. The petition claimed respondents denied

petitioner his Fourteenth Amendment right of access to courts by losing his trial transcripts and

other legal materials. The petition further states that respondents’ actions left petitioner unable to

collaterally attack his state court conviction in a timely manner. 

On September 14, 2009, the Honorable Michael M. Anello dismissed the petition sua sponte

on the ground that an access to courts claim is not cognizable as a federal habeas claim and granted

petitioner leave to amend. (Doc. No. 4.) Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition (“FAP”) on

September 28, 2009 and realleged the access to courts claim. (Doc. No. 6.) Respondent filed a

Motion to Dismiss the FAP on December 21, 2009 on the grounds that petitioner failed to exhaust

Case 3:09-cv-01861-MMA-POR Document 15 Filed 03/30/10 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 1

In his FAP, petitioner asserted that the conduct complained of occurred during his direct

appeals, rather than the collateral attack stage of the appeals process. (Doc. 6 at 14.)

- 2 - 09cv1861

state court remedies and failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 11.) 

Petitioner filed an Opposition on January 20, 2010 and averred the access to courts claim had been 

properly exhausted in state court. (Doc. No. 14.) Petitioner also requested a new form of relief in

his opposition, specifically that the Court find petitioner entitled to equitable tolling of the one year

time limit mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are stated in petitioner’s FAP and Opposition. Petitioner is currently

imprisoned at the California State Prison- Sacramento. (Doc. 6 at 13.) On June 30, 2005, the

Superior Court of California convicted petitioner of felony robbery and the unlawful taking of a

vehicle. (Doc. 6 at 2. ) Ultimately, petitioner decided to collaterally attack his conviction in federal

court. (Doc.14 at 3.) At that time, petitioner was imprisoned at the Richard J. Donovan

Correctional Center (“RJDCC”). Id.1

 On February 6, 2007, RJDCC placed petitioner in

administrative segregation. (Doc. 6 at 16.) While in administrative segregation, petitioner received

a complete set of his trial transcripts from the counselor assisting him with his appeal. (Doc. 6 at 17). 

On October 23, 2007, RJDCC notified petitioner that he would be transferred to the Kern

Prison. Id. at 17-18. Due to wildfires in the area, petitioner did not receive the standard twenty four

hour notice of his transfer. Id. at 21. Instead, a corrections officer woke petitioner up in the middle

of the night and told him to place all of his belongings in a sheet and prepare for an immediate

transfer. Id. Petitioner brought the sheet containing some of his belongings, including his legal

materials, as well as a box containing additional items, to Corrections Officer Frederick for shipping. 

Id. at 18. The box was ultimately placed on the bus that transported petitioner to the Kern Prison. 

Id. Corrections Officer Frederick placed all of petitioner’s legal materials, including his trial

transcripts, in a separate box that did not get transferred with petitioner. Id. Officer Frederick did

not follow the standard procedure of generating a log-inventory form to track petitioner’s

Case 3:09-cv-01861-MMA-POR Document 15 Filed 03/30/10 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 - 09cv1861

belongings. Id. Furthermore, when petitioner requested a property receipt, a prison official

informed him there was no time to issue a receipt because the wildfires had started to shut the roads

down. Id. at 21. Approximately seven days after his initial transfer, the Kern Prison transferred

petitioner back to RJDCC. Id. at 18. 

Petitioner claims he never received the box containing his legal materials. As a result,

petitioner was impeded from collaterally attacking his conviction within the one year time limit

imposed by AEDPA. 

III. DISCUSSION

Respondents move to dismiss petitioner’s claim on the grounds that petitioner failed to

exhaust state remedies prior to filing his habeas petition and failed to state a claim. In his

opposition, petitioner asserts the instant claim has been fully exhausted in state court and

respondents’ argument regarding petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies applies to a

different claim that petitioner pursued in state court. 

Before the Court can rule on respondents’ motion, the Court must determine whether it has

jurisdiction over the instant matter. Under 28 U.S.C. §2254, federal courts may “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 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties

of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §2254(a). The Supreme Court has explained that “[c]hallenges to

the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas

corpus.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam). By contrast, “requests for

relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a §1983 action.” Id; see also

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973) (“a §1983 action is a proper remedy for a state

prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the

fact or length of his custody.”). 

The Ninth Circuit recently reiterated that a prisoner’s state imprisonment is insufficient by

itself to confer jurisdiction on federal courts under §2254. Bailey v. Hill, -F.3d-, No. 09-35450 (9 th

Cir. Mar. 25, 2010). In Bailey, the Court found that the statutory language “in custody in violation

Case 3:09-cv-01861-MMA-POR Document 15 Filed 03/30/10 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 - 09cv1861

of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States...explicitly requires a nexus between the

petitioner’s claim and the unlawful nature of the custody.” Id; see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d

850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a §1983 action proper, where a

successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”)

In the instant petition, petitioner claims respondents did not follow the proper procedure for

safekeeping inmate belongings and lost petitioner’s legal materials as a result. Petitioner now seeks

to have those materials replaced or be awarded monetary damages so he can purchase new materials. 

Petitioner further requests a court order stating he is entitled to equitable tolling when he ultimately

seeks federal review of his conviction. However, petitioner does not seek such federal review here. 

 The Court recognizes that petitioner has alleged facts which may be sufficient to state a

 a constitutional claim under §1983. It is well settled that prisoners have a constitutional right of

access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996). That right “prohibit[s] state prison

officials from actively interfering with inmates’ attempts to prepare legal documents.” Id.

However, while petitioner contends respondents violated that right during his confinement, he does

not claim that violation affects the validity or duration of his confinement. Accordingly, the claim is

not cognizable on federal habeas and the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus must be

DISMISSED.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court RECOMMENDS the instant petition be

DISMISSED. The Court further RECOMMENDS respondents’ Motion to Dismiss be DENIED as

moot. This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to this case, the Honorable Michael M. Anello, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C § 636 (b)(1) (2007) and Local Rule 72.1 (d).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than April 30, 2010, any party may file and serve

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

Case 3:09-cv-01861-MMA-POR Document 15 Filed 03/30/10 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 - 09cv1861

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objection shall be filed and served no later

than seven days after being served with the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 29, 2010

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: The Honorable Michael M. Anello

all parties

Case 3:09-cv-01861-MMA-POR Document 15 Filed 03/30/10 Page 5 of 5