Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01084/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01084-0/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

JOHN L. JOHNSON, Jr.

Petitioner, No. CIV S-10-1084 GGH P

vs.

CDCR, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER AND

 / FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed purported to file both an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by

§ 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted, but only

inasmuch as the pleading will be construed as a habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the portion of his filing that presents as a habeas application, petitioner states

that he was convicted of battery on a peace officer while he was in prison on March 24, 2010,

and given a sentence of twelve months. Petition, p. 2. Petitioner claims that the Board of Prison

Terms (which is now denominated the Board of Parole Hearings [BPH]) violated his right to due

process and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) deducted 150

Case 2:10-cv-01084-LKK -GGH Document 4 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 5
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 petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 1

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

days of credit even though Senate Bill chapter 28 section 2932(A)(3) states that only 90 days of

credit can be deducted for a misdemeanor. Id., at 3. 

Petitioner apparently predicates his claims of a due process violation on the

permanent injunction of Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, No. CIV-S 94-0671 LKK (E.D. Cal.). Id. 

He states a parole hold was placed on him by his parole officer while he was in custody on March

24, 2010, that he was not violated on parole until March 30, 2010, even though his parole

officer’s supervisor had only 48 hours to decide whether to violate him. Id. He did not receive

written notice of the charges until April 7, 2010, even though this was supposed to occur within

72 hours. Id. Petitioner was supposed to see an attorney and Deputy Commissioner within 13

business days of the parole hold but this did not happen until 15 business days later on April 13,

2010. Id. Petitioner was offered nine months with half time because his due process rights were

violated but petitioner refused the offer because another cellmate, Jason Mitchell, had received

four months with half time for the same charge on the same officer two weeks before him. Id. 

Petitioner references again the 150 days credit he alleges the CDCR wrongly deducted rather than

the 90 days credit loss. Id. 

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, 1

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). 

After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has

failed to exhaust state court remedies. The claims have not been presented to the California

Case 2:10-cv-01084-LKK -GGH Document 4 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 5
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 is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 2

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). 

3

Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to

petitioner. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.

2

To the extent petitioner seeks to proceed on the same claims against CDCR and

BPH in a separate action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (see pages 7-57) for money damages, he may

not do so in the instant action. In the first place, his claims would be barred by Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). In Heck, supra, an Indiana state prisoner

brought a civil rights action under § 1983 for damages. Claiming that state and county officials

violated his constitutional rights, he sought damages for improprieties in the investigation

leading to his arrest, for the destruction of evidence, and for conduct during his trial (“illegal and

unlawful voice identification procedure”). Convicted on voluntary manslaughter charges, and

serving a fifteen year term, plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief or release from custody. The

United States Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the complaint and held

that:

in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,

a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has

been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,

declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such

determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance

of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages

bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not

been so invalidated is not cognizable under 1983.

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. The Court expressly held that a cause of action for

damages under § 1983 concerning a criminal conviction or sentence cannot exist unless the

conviction or sentence has been invalidated, expunged or reversed. Id.

Case 2:10-cv-01084-LKK -GGH Document 4 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 5
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

In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S. Ct. 1584 (1997), the Supreme Court

held that Heck applies to challenges to prison disciplinary hearings when the nature of the

challenge to the procedures could be such as necessarily to imply the invalidity of the judgment. 

Edwards rejected the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Gotcher v. Wood, 66 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir.

1995) that a claim challenging only the procedures employed in a disciplinary hearing is not

barred by Heck.

Under Heck, a plaintiff is also barred from challenging the validity of his

confinement resulting from a parole revocation hearing until the parole board’s decision has been

reversed, expunged, set aside or called into question. Jones v. Cassidy, 2009 WL 2058260 *2

(N.D. Cal. 2009), citing Littles v. Bd. of Pardons and Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th

Cir.1995). 

Furthermore, to the extent that petitioner, as plaintiff, seeks to state a claim under

§ 1983 for the defendants allegedly having failed to comply with the Valdivia injunction,

plaintiff fails to do so. 

A remedial court order, standing alone, cannot serve as the basis

for liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because such orders do not

create “rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution

and laws” of the United States. Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116,

1123-24 (5th Cir.1986) (remedial decrees are means by which

unconstitutional conditions are corrected but do not create or

enlarge constitutional rights); see also DeGidio v. Pung, 920 F.2d

525, 534-35 (8th Cir.1990). To the extent plaintiff claims that the

Valdivia injunction has been violated, he must apply for relief in

that case. As a California parolee, plaintiff apparently is a class

member in the Valdivia class action and therefore should seek

relief by “urging further actions through the class representative

and attorney, including contempt proceedings, or by intervention in

the class action.” Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th

Cir.1988) (en banc).

Jones v. Cassidy, 2009 WL 2058260 *1. The action pursuant to § 1983 is inapposite in this

habeas filing and will be stricken. Should petitioner, despite this court’s finding that he has not

framed a colorable claim, nevertheless seek to proceed as plaintiff under § 1983, he must do so

by filing a separate action.

Case 2:10-cv-01084-LKK -GGH Document 4 Filed 06/03/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner (but not as plaintiff) is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 

2. To the extent that petitioner has attempted to proceed in this action both

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, his action under § 1983 is deemed

stricken from the instant petition.

3. Notwithstanding the court’s having found that petitioner as plaintiff has not

framed a colorable claim under § 1983, should he seek to proceed in a civil rights action, he must

do so by filing a separate case.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of these findings and

recommendations together with a copy of the petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney

General of the State of California; 

4. 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 for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

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 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: June 3, 2010 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

john1084.103+

Case 2:10-cv-01084-LKK -GGH Document 4 Filed 06/03/10 Page 5 of 5