Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00846/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00846-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL S. IOANE, SR.,

Petitioner,

v.

DAN JOSLIN, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00846-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT PETITION BE DISMISSED FOR 

LACK OF JURISDICTION

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

ECF No. 1

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AS MOOT

ECF No. 4

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE AND 

SEND PETITIONER A § 1983 COMPLAINT 

FORM

Petitioner Michael S. Ioane, Sr., a federal prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner does not challenge his conviction or 

sentence. Instead, petitioner claims he is receiving “sub-standard medical care” in prison. ECF 

No. 1 at 2. This matter is before the court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases. See R. Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 1(b); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2243. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas petition if it “plainly appears” that 

Case 1:19-cv-00846-DAD-JDP Document 6 Filed 01/28/20 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

2

the petitioner is not entitled to relief. We recommend the petition be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. However, petitioner could still seek relief by filing a new 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.

Discussion

A challenge to the manner of execution of a federal criminal sentence is properly filed in a 

§ 2241 petition. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008). In contrast, 

“[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).

Here, petitioner claims that the circumstances of his confinement violate his right to 

proper medical care; he does not challenge the manner of execution of his sentence. Petitioner’s 

only stated ground for his petition is that he is being provided “sub-standard medical care” at his 

prison facility. ECF No. 1 at 2. Petitioner specifically states that the prison is not providing him 

the necessary medical equipment to treat his sleep apnea. Id. at 6. Because these claims are not 

cognizable under § 2241, they should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

We next consider whether to convert the petition into a § 1983 complaint. “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 v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 936 (9th Cir. 2016)

(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 

Case 1:19-cv-00846-DAD-JDP Document 6 Filed 01/28/20 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

3

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 of sub-standard 

medical care are too conclusory to state a § 1983 claim, and petitioner has named only the warden 

and vice president of his institution as the respondents; 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, petitioner would face the larger filing and administrative fees—and 

petitioner might choose not to file a § 1983 claim to avoid these fees . 

While we decline to convert the petition, 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).

Case 1:19-cv-00846-DAD-JDP Document 6 Filed 01/28/20 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

4

Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Petitioner filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on August 8, 2019. ECF No. 

4. However, petitioner’s $5.00 filing fee was paid on June 19, 2019. Therefore, we deny 

petitioner’s application as moot.

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. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is dismissed as moot. 

ECF No. 4. 

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, I submit the findings and 

recommendations to the district 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:19-cv-00846-DAD-JDP Document 6 Filed 01/28/20 Page 4 of 4