Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02304/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02304-0/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

CONNOR A. DAVIS,

Petitioner,

v.

COLUSA COUNTY COURT SYSTEM, et 

al.,

Respondents.

1

No. 2:16-cv-2304 KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner submitted a declaration that makes the showing required 

by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a).

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to

dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to

it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. . . .” Rule 4, Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may

 

1

 Petitioner is advised that the proper respondent in a federal habeas proceeding is the current 

warden prison in which petitioner is housed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d); see Stanley v. California 

Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).

Case 2:16-cv-02304-KJM-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/12/16 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

dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus at several stages of a case, including “summary

dismissal under Rule 4; a dismissal pursuant to a motion by the respondent; a dismissal after the

answer and petition are considered; or a dismissal after consideration of the pleadings and an

expanded record.”

Petitioner raises various unrelated allegations in his petition, including claims that his 

attorney committed malpractice, and that he is unlawfully convicted. While not entirely clear, it 

appears he also alleges that the named defendants failed to follow the law by not providing legal 

assistance to inmates, and attempts to challenge other conditions of his confinement. 

First, to the extent petitioner challenges his conviction for failing to register, his claim is 

premature. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court recognized a “strong 

federal policy against federal court interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent 

extraordinary circumstances. The Younger abstention doctrine applies when the following 

factors are present: "(1) ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) implication of an important state 

interest in the proceeding; and (3) an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions in the 

proceedings." World Famous Drinking Emporium v. City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079, 1082 (9th 

Cir. 1987). When the Younger doctrine applies, the district court should dismiss the action. Id. at 

1081. Petitioner concedes that his appeal is pending in state court. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Review of 

the state court website confirms that his petition was fully briefed on August 22, 2016, and 

remains pending. People v. Davis, Case No. C081064 (Ct. App. Cal.).2 Thus, petitioner’s 

challenge to his conviction are barred by Younger, and should be dismissed without prejudice.

Second, petitioner is advised that habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for 

a prisoner seeking to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 

411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Here, petitioner’s allegations concerning conditions of confinement do 

 

2

 Moreover, the exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. 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. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

Case 2:16-cv-02304-KJM-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/12/16 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

not challenge the legality of his conviction, a parole proceeding, or other adjudication that has led 

to his current incarceration. Thus, such allegations are summarily dismissed without prejudice to 

petitioner’s filing a civil rights action.

3

 

Finally, plaintiff’s claims alleging legal malpractice are unavailing in federal court. To 

state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right 

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Claims of negligence by an attorney are not based on federal law and are not 

cognizable under Section 1983. See Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 13445 (9th Cir. 1981) 

(claims of legal malpractice not cognizable in federal court). Accordingly, petitioner’s claim that 

his attorney committed malpractice or was negligent, is not cognizable.

Because this court can discern no manner in which petitioner could cure the defects in the 

allegations of his petition seeking federal habeas relief, the court recommends that the petition be 

dismissed without prejudice.4

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas 

corpus be dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 

 

3

 A civil rights action is the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to challenge the conditions 

of his confinement. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). 

4

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of limitations 

for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year period 

will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of 

direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of 

limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral 

review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Case 2:16-cv-02304-KJM-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/12/16 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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 

Recommendations.” Petitioner 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: October 12, 2016

conn2304.dsm.hc

Case 2:16-cv-02304-KJM-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/12/16 Page 4 of 4