Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00182/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00182-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul C. Courtois
Petitioner
USA
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

PAUL C. COURTOIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

USA, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

1:06-cv-00182-OWW-TAG HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER REQUIRING OBJECTIONS TO BE

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On February 16, 2006, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Motion Under 28 USC § 2255 to

Vacate, Set aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody” using a form designed for

federal prisoners challenging their convictions or sentences under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 1). 

Petitioner is not a federal prisoner and he is not challenging a federal conviction or sentence. The

substance of Petitioner’s pleading is in part akin to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s motion will be referred to as a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by a state prisoner. 

The documents attached to the petition for writ of habeas corpus indicate that Petitioner was

convicted in the Superior Court for Humboldt County on February 10, 2003 of attempted voluntary

manslaughter and assault. (Doc. 1, p. 42). Petitioner alleges that his petition for review was denied

on July 13, 2005 in the California Supreme Court.

Petitioner also references an earlier petition for writ of habeas corpus he filed in this Court in

case number 1:05-cv-01152-OWW-SMS-HC. The Court notes that on April 7, 2006, the Court

Case 1:06-cv-00182-OWW -TAG Document 3 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 6
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

dismissed all claims in that petition that challenged Petitioner’s conviction or sentence in Humboldt

County because Humboldt County is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Court ordered

Petitioner to file an amended petition with regard to the remaining claims related to Petitioner’s

parole; however, when Petitioner filed his amended petition, it only contained claims of civil rights

violations. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and entered judgment on September 29, 

2006 in the earlier case. 

Although Petitioner has mixed and combined all of his claims, the instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus appears to contain three broad claims: (1) Respondent has kept Petitioner incarcerated

past his required release date in violation of his constitutional rights; (2) Respondent is depriving

Petitioner of his civil rights vis-a-vis law library access, use of telephones, medical treatment,

money, food, and shelter; and (3) Petitioner’s sentence is illegal because of discrepancies in the

abstract of judgment. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5). 

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears

from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir.1990). Otherwise, the

Court will order Respondent to respond to the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration”

of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), (quoting Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper

method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500

U.S. 136, 141-142 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee

Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241 of

Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless

he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states that the federal courts

Case 1:06-cv-00182-OWW -TAG Document 3 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 6
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

shall entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus only on the ground that the petitioner “is in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. See also Rule 1 to the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court. The Supreme Court has

held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that

custody . . ..” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 484. Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state

court resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or resulted in a

decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). 

A. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear Petitioner’s Claim Challenging His Sentence.

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants

reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action

is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in

which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).

In this case, Petitioner challenges both the validity of his sentence and the execution of his

sentence. The proper venue for challenging the validity of his sentence is the district court

containing the sentencing court, while the proper venue to challenge the execution of his sentence is

the district court containing the prison in which Petitioner is incarcerated. 

Although Petitioner has filed in the proper district court to challenge the execution of his

sentence, any claims challenging his sentence should be heard by the district court containing the

sentencing court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims

relating to the sentencing court where Petitioner was not sentenced in this district. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241(d). Additionally, the resolution of Petitioner’s claims involving the sentencing court may

render his remaining claims moot.

///

Case 1:06-cv-00182-OWW -TAG Document 3 Filed 12/17/07 Page 3 of 6
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

The Court notes that this is precisely the same problem that was addressed in Petitioner’s earlier petition in this 1

Court in case number 1:05-cv-01152-OWW-SMS-HC. Petitioner was advised at that time that this Court lacked jurisdiction

to hear claims that challenged Petitioner’s conviction or sentence in Humboldt County. The Court reiterates that conclusion

in this Order.

4

Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence from Humboldt County, which is in the

Northern District of California. Therefore, the portion of the petition challenging the validity of his

conviction should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California. If Petitioner wishes to raise these claims further, he must do so in that district court.

1

B. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear Civil Rights Claims.

Petitioner’s claim regarding Respondent’s alleged violations of his civil rights are not

appropriate in this habeas proceeding. As mentioned previously, a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. 

 McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at

574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Here, Petitioner contends that the conditions of his confinement, i.e., food, shelter, telephone

access, medical services, and law library access, are inadequate. Petitioner is thus challenging the

conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not

entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this claim must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue

his claim of civil rights denial, Petitioner must do so by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

C. Petitioner’s Parole Claim Must Be Amended To Clearly State A Federal Claim.

Petitioner’s claim that Respondent has kept him incarcerated beyond his release date would

appear, at first blush, to raise a constitutional issue. However, the claim, as presently framed, is too

vague and conclusory for the Court to determine the exact nature of the claim. Petitioner must state

his claim with sufficient specificity. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d at 490-491; Wacht v.

Cardwell, 604 F.2d 1245, 1246-1247 (9th Cir. 1979). Conclusory allegations in a habeas petition

fail to state a claim and do not suffice to shift the burden to the state to answer an order to show

cause. See Allard v. Nelson, 423 F.2d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir. 1970); Hendricks, 908 F.2d at 491-492;

Wacht, 604 F.2d at 1246-1247. Following the resolution of these Findings and Recommendations,

Case 1:06-cv-00182-OWW -TAG Document 3 Filed 12/17/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

the Court will grant Petitioner the opportunity to amend the petition to clarify his claim for relief

based on a denial of parole. 

D. Petitioner Must Name The Proper Respondent.

Finally, if Petitioner files an amended petition, he must name the person have day-to-day

custody of Petitioner as Respondent. A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief must name the state

officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing

§ 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California

Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an

incarcerated petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the

warden has “day-to-day control over” the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378,

379 (9th Cir. 1992). However, the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions is also

appropriate. Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. When a petitioner is on

probation or parole, the proper respondent is his probation or parole officer and the official in charge

of the parole or probation agency or state correctional agency. Id. 

As discussed above, Petitioner utilized a form designed for federal prisoners challenging their

convictions or sentences under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The form contains the printed name “United

States of America” where, normally, the respondent’s name would be inserted in a habeas corpus

petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Apparently, the Clerk of the Court assumed Petitioner

had named as the respondent the United States of America. However, upon closer review, it appears

that Petitioner has not named anyone as the respondent. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to

consider his remaining claim related to parole.

Following the issuance of an order resolving these Findings and Recommendations,

Petitioner will be given an opportunity to file an amended petition naming as the respondent the

individual responsible for day-to-day control over Petitioner. See West v. State of Louisiana, 478

F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir. 1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1975) (en

banc) (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of

Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). Petitioner’s failure to name his custodian as a

///

Case 1:06-cv-00182-OWW -TAG Document 3 Filed 12/17/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

respondent deprives this Court of personal jurisdiction to consider his petition. Stanley, 21 F.3d at

360; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989)

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s claim challenging his sentence and conviction arising from Humboldt

County be DISMISSED from the action for lack of jurisdiction; 

2. Petitioner’s claim of civil rights violations in prison be dismissed because it fails to

state a claim for which habeas relief can be granted; and 

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the order resolving these Findings 

and Recommendations, Petitioner be granted leave to file an amended petition

regarding his parole claim. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

twenty (20) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court

and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within

fifteen (15) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The District

Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00182-OWW -TAG Document 3 Filed 12/17/07 Page 6 of 6