Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00233/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00233-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY DOWNS, IV, Civil No. 12-0233 BTM (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 

(2) DISMISSING THE PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and

(3) DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

AS MOOT

v.

DOMINGO URIBE, JR, Warden,

Respondent.

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

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

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 Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

/ / /

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\IFPgrant-dismiss.wpd, 4912 -1- 12cv0233

Case 3:12-cv-00233-AJB-BGS Document 5 Filed 04/09/12 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

FAILURE TO RAISE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON FEDERAL HABEAS

In accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases, the Petition is subject to

dismissal because Petitioner has failed to allege that he is in custody in violation of the laws,

treaties or 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

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 alleges that in February 2005, the Board of Prison Terms requested that

the Sacramento District Attorney and the California Attorney General turn over material which

Petitioner contends is exculpatory under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), in order that

Petitioner could use the material to prepare for a June 2012 parole hearing. (Pet. at 2, 14.) 

Petitioner indicates that although the government stipulated that it would provide the material

to Petitioner, it has still not been turned over, which he alleges constitutes a due process

violation. (Id. at 14.) He also indicates that he has exhausted his due process claim by

presenting it to the state supreme court. (Id. at 6, 15.) 1

Petitioner raised a similar claim in a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this Court in case 1

number 10cv2029 H (MDD), along with other claims. In that case, Petitioner claimed the Board of Parole

Hearings “violated the Due Process Clause by failing to turn over exculpatory evidence for Petitioner’s parole

consideration hearings.” (See Order filed 4/27/11 [ECF No. 55] at 4 in So.Dist.Ca.Civil Case No.10cv2029 H

(MDD).) The Court found that Respondent did not possess the alleged evidence, that Petitioner’s injury was not

traceable to them or redressable by the Court, and accordingly there was no case or controversy between the

parties regarding the claim. (Id. at 6.) Although the instant Petition presents a slightly different claim in that

Petitioner contends that a different party has failed to turn over the material, the new Petition appears to be

second or successive to the prior petition because Petitioner could have raised his claim in the prior petition. See

Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1273 (9th Cir. 2001) (Generally, a new petition is ‘second or successive’

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\IFPgrant-dismiss.wpd, 4912 -2- 12cv0233

Case 3:12-cv-00233-AJB-BGS Document 5 Filed 04/09/12 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

Petitioner has not presented a claimwhich is cognizable on federal habeas because he has

not alleged facts demonstrating that he is in custody in violation of “the Constitution or laws or

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The United States Supreme Court has stated 2

that: “In the context of parole, we have held that the procedures required are minimal. In

Greenholtz [v. Nebraska, 442 U.S. 1 (1979)] we found that a prisoner subject to a prole statute

similar to California’s received adequate process when he was allowed an opportunity to be

heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. . . . The Constitution,

we held, does not require more.” Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862 (2011) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Petitioner appears to request prospective relief for a due process

violation that, even if it could arise from the failure to provide him with material needed for his

parole hearing, has not yet occurred. Thus, even to the extent Petitioner possess a due process

right to a parole hearing at which he is able to submit the requested material, such a due process

violation has not yet occurred. As such, Petitioner has not alleged that he is in custody in

violation of the federal Constitution, laws or treaties, and the Petition is subject to dismissal.

The Court notes that Petitioner contends that he is presenting a challenge to the conditions

of his confinement. (Pet. at 1.) Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought

by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions

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

Rodriquez, 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 from that imprisonment, his sole federal

remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 500. On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper

remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his

if it raises claims that were or could have been adjudicated on their merits in an earlier petition.”) The Court

need not make a determination whether the instant Petition is second or successive because it does not present

a federal claim. 

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court in case

2

number 12cv0231 BTM (WVG) Downs v. Uribe, in which he alleged that the government hasfailed to turn over

exculpatory material relevant to hisJune 2012 parole hearing, thereby violating his due process rights. (See Pet.

at 2, 14, [ECF No. 1] in So. Dist. Ca. Civil Case No. 12cv0231 BTM (WVG)). On February 21, 2012, the

petition was denied for the same reasons outlined in the present Order. (See Order filed 2/21/12/ [ECF No. 3]

at 1 in So. Dist. Ca. Civil Case No. 12cv0231 BTM (WVG)). 

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\IFPgrant-dismiss.wpd, 4912 -3- 12cv0233

Case 3:12-cv-00233-AJB-BGS Document 5 Filed 04/09/12 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

prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody. Id. at 499; McIntosh v. United States

Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). Petitioner may not proceed with his

claim under § 1983 because he is seeking Brady material. See Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.Ct.

1289, 1300 (2011) (holding that because a Brady claim, when successful, necessarily yields

evidence undermining a conviction, it cannot be maintained under § 1983).

CONCLUSION

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

pauperis and DISMISSES the petition without prejudice for failure to state cognizable claim for

relief. Petitioner’s motion to stay the proceedings is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 6, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Copies to: ALL PARTIES

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\IFPgrant-dismiss.wpd, 4912 -4- 12cv0233

Case 3:12-cv-00233-AJB-BGS Document 5 Filed 04/09/12 Page 4 of 4