Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01650/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01650-0/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

 “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him 1

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 named the former CDC Director (now the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)). This individual is not the proper

respondent. Petitioner is cautioned to name the proper respondent.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JARON BRIGNAC,

Petitioner, CIV S-06-1650 LKK GGH P

vs.

J. S. WOODFORD, DIRECTOR OF 

THE CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,1

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition which must be construed as

brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

Case 2:06-cv-01650-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 11/16/06 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

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner purports to bring this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, however, 28

U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive avenue for a state court prisoner challenging the constitutionality

of his detention. White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1005 (9 Cir. 2004). Section 2254 is the proper th

vehicle even when a petitioner challenges, not the underlying conviction itself, but, in this case,

administrative decisions. Id. at 1007. 

Petitioner seeks restoration of time credits lost as a result of his conviction at

numerous separate serious rules violations (CDC 115's) prison disciplinary hearings. On May

24, 1999, petitioner was assessed 30 days’ credit at a serious rules violation CDC 115 prison

disciplinary hearing; on June 26, 1999, petitioner was assessed 30 days’ credit at another CDC

115 proceeding; on August 11, 1999, petitioner lost another 30 days of time credits at a CDC 115

hearing; on October 19, 1999, was assessed a further 30 day credit loss on a CDC 115. On

November 1, 1999, petitioner lost 30 days of credit on a CDC 115 at one hearing and, on the

same day, lost an additional 90 days at another CDC 115 hearing. On April 10, 2000, he lost

another 30 days at a CDC 115 proceeding. Moreover, petitioner received some 17 additional

serious CDC 115's, which he does not specifically set forth. The effect of each of the prison

disciplinaries has been that each has moved his minimum eligible parole date back and it is now

December 5, 2009. Petitioner alleges that he has a history of mental illness and that no

psychiatric evaluation was performed before any of his prison disciplinary hearings to determine

if he was able to competently proceed with each hearing.

When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks

is the determination of his entitlement to an earlier or immediate release, his sole federal remedy

is a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). Before plaintiff may

bring a federal habeas corpus action, however, he must present his claims to the highest state

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-01650-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 11/16/06 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

 Petitioner must challenge only one state court decision in his petition. Unless he 2

exhausts state court remedies as to all the prison disciplinary hearings set forth here in one

petition to which the state supreme court renders a single decision, he may not proceed as to all

of them in a single federal petition. See Rule 2(e) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in

the United States District Court (a separate petition must be filed as to each judgment of a state

court). 

3

court. Petitioner here challenges multiple prison disciplinary hearings, none of which he has

shown to be exhausted.2

The 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). A 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). The claims raised herein do not appear to have

been presented to the California Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court

remedies are no longer available to petitioner. The petition must be dismissed for failure to

exhaust available state remedies. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for

a writ of habeas corpus be denied for petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-01650-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 11/16/06 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

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 11/15/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

brig1650.ord

Case 2:06-cv-01650-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 11/16/06 Page 4 of 4