Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01874/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01874-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dale Owen Dustin
Petitioner
C. Pffeifer
Respondent

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE OWEN DUSTIN,

Petitioner,

v.

C. PFFEIFER,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01874- EPG-HC

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 wherein he challenges two prison disciplinary proceedings. (ECF 

No. 1 at 2).1

I.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”

A. Habeas Jurisdiction

By statute, federal courts “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 

 

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page. 

Case 1:16-cv-01874-DAD-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/12/17 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

is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(a). A claim falls within the “core of habeas corpus” when a prisoner challenges “the fact 

or duration of his confinement” and “seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the 

shortening of its duration.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). The Ninth Circuit 

recently adopted a rule that a “state prisoner’s claim [that] does not lie at ‘the core of habeas 

corpus’ . . . must be brought, ‘if at all,’ under § 1983.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934 

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487; Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 

535 n.13 (2011)). Therefore, if “success on [Petitioner]’s claims would not necessarily lead to his 

immediate or earlier release from confinement, [Petitioner]’s claim does not fall within ‘the core 

of habeas corpus,’ and he must instead bring his claim under § 1983.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935 

(quoting Skinner, 562 U.S at 535 n.13). 

In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges two prison disciplinary proceedings and 

states that he was penalized with “90 days C-status.” (ECF No. 1 at 2). The Court understands 

this to mean a loss of privileges, and Petitioner states that the disciplinary violations “are not 

serious enough to take [credits] or add time onto [his] sentence.” (ECF No. 1 at 7). Thus, success 

on Petitioner’s challenge to the disciplinary proceedings would not necessarily lead to immediate 

or earlier release from custody. It therefore appears that Petitioner is not entitled to relief 

through a habeas corpus petition. However, Petitioner may be entitled to relief in a civil lawsuit 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as discussed more below.

Accordingly, Petitioner will be required to show cause why the Court should not dismiss

this habeas corpus petition in light of Nettles.

B. Exhaustion

A petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based 

on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s 

alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. 

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 

Case 1:16-cv-01874-DAD-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/12/17 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

presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. 

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971).

If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court for the claims that he 

raises in the instant petition, the Court cannot proceed to the merits of those claims. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(b)(1). Here, Petitioner states that he has not presented his claims to any state court. (ECF 

No. 1 at 3–4). Accordingly, Petitioner will be required to show cause why the petition for habeas 

corpus should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

C. Conversion to § 1983 Civil Rights Action

If Petitioner is unable to show cause why the Court has habeas jurisdiction of this matter, 

or how he has exhausted judicial remedies, Petitioner may convert his petition to a civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (“If the complaint is amenable to 

conversion on its face, meaning that it names the correct defendants and seeks the correct relief, 

the court may recharacterize the petition so long as it warns the pro se litigant of the 

consequences of the conversion and provides an opportunity for the litigant to withdraw or 

amend his or her complaint.”) (quoting Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)).

The Court notes, however, that habeas corpus and prisoner civil rights actions differ in a variety 

of respects, such as the proper defendants, filing fees, exhaustion requirements, and restrictions 

on future filings (e.g., the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule). Nettles, 830 F.3d at 

936 (citing Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 839, 841 (7th Cir. 2011); Glaus, 408 F.3d at 388).

If Petitioner chooses to convert the instant matter to a civil rights action, Petitioner will

be required to submit a civil rights complaint form that names the proper defendants and seeks 

appropriate relief. The filing fee for § 1983 civil rights cases is $350, and Petitioner is required 

to pay the full amount by way of deductions from income to Petitioner’s trust account, even if 

granted in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

2

Petitioner also may, at his option, voluntarily dismiss his habeas petition without 

prejudice to refiling his claims as a § 1983 civil rights action. However, Petitioner is forewarned 

that dismissal and refiling may subject Petitioner to a possible statute of limitations bar as well as 

 

2 The Court granted Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant case. (ECF No. 11).

Case 1:16-cv-01874-DAD-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/12/17 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

other complications as set forth above.

II.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall either:

a. Show cause why the habeas petition should not be dismissed for lack of habeas 

jurisdiction pursuant to Nettles and for nonexhaustion; 

b. Notify the Court that he chooses to convert his habeas petition into a § 1983 

action and submit a civil rights complaint form that names the proper defendants 

and seeks appropriate relief; OR

c. Voluntarily dismiss the instant action without prejudice to refiling his claims in a 

§ 1983 action.

3. If Petitioner elects to convert to a § 1983 action, Plaintiff’s complaint shall be limited to 

twenty-five pages. The complaint must be “clearly legible” and double-spaced. Local 

Rule 130(b), (c). 

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order may result in dismissal of the 

petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (a petitioner’s failure to prosecute or 

to comply with a court order may result in a dismissal of the action).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2017 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01874-DAD-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 4