Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01979/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01979-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JLS\11cv1979-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 92211 -1- 11cv1979

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL K. PORTER, Civil No. 11cv1979-JLS (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

LELAND McEWEN, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for a Writ of

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

pauperis. 

Petitioner has no funds on account at the California correctional institution in which he

is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the

above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and

without being required to post security. 

The Petition is subject to dismissal, however, because Petitioner has not stated a claim

cognizable on federal habeas, and has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies.

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction or the length

of their confinement in state prison, must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C.

Case 3:11-cv-01979-JLS-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/22/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JLS\11cv1979-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 92211 -2- 11cv1979

§ 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). To exhaust state judicial

remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court with a fair

opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her federal habeas petition. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. Moreover, to properly exhaust state court

remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or more of his or her federal rights

have been violated. The Supreme Court in Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) reasoned:

“If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal

rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the

United States Constitution.” Id. at 365-66 (emphasis added). For example, “[i]f a habeas

petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him [or her] the

due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he [or she] must say so, not only

in federal court, but in state court.” Id. at 366 (emphasis added).

Petitioner indicates that he has not raised his claim in the California Supreme Court. (Pet.

at 6.) The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted lies with the petitioner. Cartwright

v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 

Additionally, in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases, Petitioner

has failed to allege that his state court conviction or sentence violates the Constitution of the

United States.

Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth the following scope of review for

federal habeas corpus claims:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district

court shall 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) (emphasis added). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir.

1991); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauole v. Shimoda, 800

F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to present a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim

under § 2254, a state prisoner must allege both that he is in custody pursuant to a “judgment of

Case 3:11-cv-01979-JLS-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/22/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JLS\11cv1979-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 92211 -3- 11cv1979

a State court,” and that he is in custody in “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Here, Petitioner contends that the prison administration has interfered with his right to

file an inmate grievance regarding medical care. (Pet. at 6; Attachment to IFP Motion.) In no

way does Petitioner claim he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties

of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner’s allegation of interference with his ability

to pursue inmate grievances does not state a federal claim. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639,

640 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment creates

“no legitimate claim of entitlement to a [prison] grievance procedure”). To the extent Petitioner

is contending that he is not receiving proper medical care, his claim is properly brought in a civil

rights action, not in a habeas petition.

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are properly brought in a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, whereas challenges to conditions of

confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-500 (1973). When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or

duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is

entitled to immediate release or a speedier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas

corpus. Id. at 500. On the other hand, a section 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state

prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, including

denial of access to necessary medical care, but not to the fact or length of his custody. Preiser,

411 U.S. at 499; McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir.

1997).

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of a

habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . .” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief

because he has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies, and has not stated a claim

cognizable on federal habeas. 

Case 3:11-cv-01979-JLS-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/22/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JLS\11cv1979-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 92211 -4- 11cv1979

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. The Petition is DISMISSED because Petitioner has failed to allege exhaustion of state

court remedies and has failed to state a claim cognizable on federal habeas. Because Petitioner

is attempting to challenge the conditions of his confinement rather than the fact of his

incarceration, the dismissal is without leave to amend but without prejudice to Petitioner to

present his claims in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which will be given

a new civil case number. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank Southern District of

California 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Complaint form along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 22, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01979-JLS-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/22/11 Page 4 of 4