Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00536/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00536-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW CEJAS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0536 FCD KJM P

vs.

LOU BLANAS, ORDER AND

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action he filed using the

form for a habeas corpus action by a state prisoner. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He does not allege,

however, that his continued confinement violates the federal constitution, a prerequisite for

federal habeas corpus relief. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Instead he

complains about an incident that occurred when he was a pretrial detainee at Sacramento County

Jail, which are properly raised in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has submitted

an affidavit requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(a)(1). 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28U.S.C. §

636(b)(1).

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00536-FCD-KJM Document 7 Filed 04/16/07 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

The in forma pauperis statute permits federal district courts to

authorize the commencement, prosecution or

defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or

criminal . . . without prepayment of fees or security

therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that

includes a statement of all assets such prisoner

possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees

or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state

the nature of the action . . . and affiant’s belief that

the person is entitled to redress.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if it appears from

the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152

F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1998). In determining whether an action is frivolous, the court may “pierce

the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions

are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Such allegations include

those “describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are

all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33

(1992) (finding of frivolousness appropriate when allegations are irrational or wholly

incredible).

Plaintiff describes two incidents. On July 31, 2005, Deputies Saigon and Persson

refused to let a group of inmates out to the day room because many inmates in the pod did not

get up for count. He claims that when asked, deputy Saigon told the inmates that they all were

being punished because of the actions of some. The second incident was on May 22, 2003, when

Deputy Saigon cut short his session in the day room because several inmates refused to move

away from the lower tier doors. Complaint (Compl.) at 1-2. Plaintiff contends these actions

violated his right to due process and double jeopardy.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00536-FCD-KJM Document 7 Filed 04/16/07 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

3

Not every disability imposed during pretrial

detention amounts to “punishment” in the

constitutional sense, however.... And the fact that

such detention interferes with the detainee's

understandable desire to live as comfortably as

possible and with as little restraint as possible

during confinement does not convert the conditions

or restrictions of detention into “punishment.”

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 (1979). Moreover, even if a restriction has an incidental

punitive effect on a pretrial detainee:

it is nonetheless constitutional if it also furthers some legitimate

governmental objective such as addressing a specific institutional

violation and is not excessive in light of the seriousness of the

violation.

Collazo-Leon v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 51 F.3d 315, 318 (1st Cir. 1995). Legitimate objectives

include the maintenance of internal order in the jail. Bell, 441 U.S. at 540. Moreover, as the

Ninth Circuit has recognized, a pretrial detainee has not been punished in a constitutional sense

when he was deprived of exercise for a single day. Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th

Cir. 1998); compare Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1432 (7th Cir. 1996) (detainee stated a

claim when he alleged that he was not released for exercise for seven weeks and had no room to

exercise in his cell). 

In this case, the deputies acted to maintain internal order by restricting access to

the day room as a result of misbehavior. Moreover, these isolated incidents have no

constitutional significance. This court cannot say that these two slight deprivations were

undertaken with the purpose or the unintended consequence of punishing plaintiff for the acts

which are the basis of his prosecution. Collazo-Leon, 51 F.3d at 318.

Plaintiff also claims that these acts violated his right to avoid multiple

punishment. Although this claim may sound in habeas, it is also frivolous. The Supreme Court

“ha[s] long recognized that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the imposition of all

additional sanctions that could, ‘in common parlance,’ be described as punishment.” Hudson v.

Case 2:06-cv-00536-FCD-KJM Document 7 Filed 04/16/07 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

United States, 522 U.S. 93, 98-99 (1997). As noted above, even for the purpose of a civil rights

action, this alleged punishment has no constitutional significance. “Applying the Fifth

Amendment to bar criminal prosecution in conjunction with these disciplinary measures would

stretch the protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause beyond its intended limits.” United States

v. Camacho, 413 F.3d 985, 991 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Finally, plaintiff has requested a temporary restraining order, restraining future

sanctions imposed by the deputies. Because this court has determined the underlying action to

be frivolous, however, there is no basis for a restraining order.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining

order is denied. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis be denied and the action be dismissed. 

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, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised 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: April 16, 2007. 

2/ceja0536.56

Case 2:06-cv-00536-FCD-KJM Document 7 Filed 04/16/07 Page 4 of 4