Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01297/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01297-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Kernan
Respondent
Darrel Lee Smith
Petitioner

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREL LEE SMITH, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1297 MCE DAD P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or submitted an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) & 1915(a).

The petition form requires the petitioner to identify the judgment of conviction

under attack. Petitioner has not identified a judgment of conviction but has instead entered the

following response: “Condition of Confinment [sic] Not on Conviction.” Petitioner alleges as

his first, second, third, and fourth grounds for relief that he was “denied the right to appeal by the

inmate appeal process 602.” Petitioner complains that in 2004 and 2005 he was repeatedly

denied the right to pursue an inmate appeal concerning a classification committee decision made

in 1997. Petitioner requests that the court order the Department of Corrections to grant all five of

the inmate appeals he submitted.

Case 2:05-cv-01297-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 07/05/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

A federal court may not entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought by a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court unless the petition has been brought

on the ground that the petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties

of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Federal habeas corpus relief is available only for

challenges to the duration or legality of a prisoner’s confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 500 (1973). A state prisoner who seeks to challenge unconstitutional conditions of

confinement may attack those conditions in federal court by presenting the claims in a civil rights

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

To the extent that petitioner alleges denial of the right to pursue inmate appeals,

his allegations do not state a basis for federal habeas corpus relief and must be summarily

dismissed. Dismissal should be without prejudice to the filing of a civil rights action, if

appropriate. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases (“If it plainly appears from the face of

the petition and any exhibits attached to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district

court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal . . . .”).

In an attachment to the form petition, petitioner appears to claim that his

confinement is illegal because of a classification error made in 1997. He states that he “has done

all his time besides a few years.” Although these allegations concern the duration or legality of

his confinement, petitioner may not bring a federal habeas corpus action on these allegations

until he has presented all federal claims to the highest state court. See Picard v. Connor, 404

U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). Petitioner has

not alleged that he presented his claims to the California Supreme Court. To the extent that

petitioner seeks his immediate release from incarceration, his claims are habeas claims that must

be dismissed for failure to exhaust available state remedies.

Petitioner will be provided with a civil rights complaint form and the in forma

pauperis application used in this district for civil rights actions. If petitioner chooses to file a

civil rights complaint concerning use of the inmate appeal system, the complaint should be

Case 2:05-cv-01297-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 07/05/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

submitted with the required filing fee of $250.00 or a properly completed in forma pauperis

application. The case number assigned to this habeas case may not be included on any civil

rights complaint or any habeas petition submitted in the future. A new case will be opened for

any subsequent action, and a new case number will be assigned by the Clerk.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide petitioner

with a civil rights complaint form and the in forma pauperis application used in civil rights

actions in this district; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be summarily dismissed without 

prejudice because it plainly appears from the face of the habeas petition that petitioner is not

entitled to federal habeas corpus relief on his claims concerning conditions of confinement and

that any claims concerning the legality of petitioner’s confinement have not been exhausted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 5, 2005.

DAD:13

smit1297.156

Case 2:05-cv-01297-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 07/05/05 Page 3 of 3