Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01230/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01230-4/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM CHANEY,

Petitioner,

 v.

M.C. KRAMER, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. 08-01230 CW

ORDER GRANTING

RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

On February 16, 2008, pro se Petitioner William Chaney, a

California state prisoner currently incarcerated at Folsom State

Prison, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of his incarceration. 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. Petitioner filed an

opposition. Respondent filed a reply. Petitioner filed another

opposition. Having considered all the papers submitted by the

parties, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

On September 18, 1990, Petitioner William Chaney proceeded to

trial by jury. On October 25, 1990, the jury found Petitioner

guilty of one count of first degree murder and one count of

attempted first degree murder. Petitioner’s co-defendant was

similarly convicted. On January 11, 1991, Petitioner was sentenced

Case 4:08-cv-01230-CW Document 17 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

to twenty-five years to life in prison for the first degree murder

conviction and to eleven years, eight months in prison

consecutively for the attempted first degree murder conviction. 

On February 19, 1991, Petitioner filed a timely appeal to the

California court of appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial

court’s judgment. On March 5, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus in the California court of appeal. On

March 8, 2007, the appellate court denied the petition on the

ground that Petitioner failed to demonstrate good cause for his

delay of over fifteen years in seeking relief and failed to show

that his petition should be considered under an exception to the

requirement that habeas relief be timely sought. Also, the

appellate court instructed Petitioner to file his claim regarding

the conditions of his confinement in the proper venue, namely, in

Sacramento County, the county of his confinement. Instead,

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the

California Supreme Court, which was denied on January 23, 2008. On

February 16, 2008, Petitioner filed this federal habeas petition,

alleging one claim based on the conditions of his confinement and

four claims based on constitutional violations at his 1990 trial. 

DISCUSSION

Respondent moves to dismiss Petitioner’s first claim on the

grounds that it is not cognizable on habeas review and is barred by

procedural default, and moves to dismiss Petitioner’s four

constitutional claims on the grounds that they are barred by the

statute of limitations. 

Case 4:08-cv-01230-CW Document 17 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Because Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable as a federal

habeas claim, the Court need not address Respondent’s argument that

it is barred by procedural default. 

3

I. Petitioner’s Prison Placement Score

Petitioner claims that the Folsom State Prison Classification

Committee improperly elevated his prison placement score from

nineteen to twenty-eight based on his murder conviction and, as a

result, placed him in a level three security facility. Petitioner

seeks to decrease his placement score.

A federal court may entertain a habeas petition from a state

prisoner “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). In Preiser v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court

addressed the intersection between § 1983 and writs of habeas

corpus and held that “when a state prisoner is challenging the very

fact or duration of his physical confinement,” and where “the

relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate

release or a speedier release from that imprisonment,” the

prisoner's “sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” 411

U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Conversely, “a § 1983 action is a proper

remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional

challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact

or length of his custody.” Id. at 499. 

Because Petitioner does not alleges that his elevated

placement score affects the fact or duration of his imprisonment,

it is not a cognizable claim for habeas relief. Thus, Respondent’s

motion to dismiss this claim is granted.1

Case 4:08-cv-01230-CW Document 17 Filed 07/28/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

II. Petitioner’s Constitutional Claims Based on the 1990 Trial

 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(AEDPA) provides a one-year statute of limitations in which to file

a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

For state prisoners who were convicted before AEDPA’s enactment,

the statute of limitations began to run on the day after Congress

enacted it: April 24, 1996. Malcom v. Payne, 281 F.3d 951, 955

(9th Cir. 2002). As such, Petitioner had until April 24, 1997 to

file his petition. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on February 20, 2008,

nearly eleven years after the statute of limitations had run. 

Petitioner does not claim that his petition should be considered

under an exception to the requirement that habeas relief be timely

sought. His petition is therefore time-barred. Accordingly,

Respondent’s motion to dismiss Petitioner’s constitutional claims

is granted. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is

GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the

file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-01230-CW Document 17 Filed 07/28/10 Page 4 of 4