Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00136/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00136-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tom M. Franks
Petitioner
Superior Court of Stanislaus County
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

TOM M FRANKS,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS 

COUNTY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00136-EPG-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

GRANT PETITIONER LEAVE TO 

CONVERT PETITION TO CIVIL RIGHTS 

ACTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Given that success on Petitioner’s claims would not necessarily 

lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement, the undersigned recommends that 

Petitioner be granted leave to convert his petition for writ of habeas corpus to a civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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.” See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 

(1994).

Case 1:20-cv-00136-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 02/11/20 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

A. Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction

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 

has held 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 the state court’s denial of his motion for 

DNA testing on the grounds that the state court conducted the hearing on the motion without 

Petitioner present and that Petitioner was represented by an attorney who had a conflict of 

interest. (ECF No. 1 at 5, 7, 26–27).1 Success on Petitioner’s claims would not necessarily lead 

to his immediate or earlier release from confinement. See Skinner, 562 U.S. at 534 (“Success in 

his suit for DNA testing would not ‘necessarily imply’ the invalidity of his conviction. While test 

results might prove exculpatory, that outcome is hardly inevitable[.]”). As Petitioner’s claims do 

not fall within “the core of habeas corpus,” Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487, they must be brought under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, Nettles, 830 F.3d at 931. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to state a 

cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief.

B. Conversion to § 1983 Civil Rights Action

“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.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (quoting Glaus 

v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)). The Court notes that habeas corpus and 

 

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

Case 1:20-cv-00136-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 02/11/20 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

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, seeks 

appropriate relief, and is signed under penalty of perjury.2 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). 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 

other complications as set forth above.

II.

RECOMMENDATION & ORDER

Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Petitioner be granted 

leave to convert his petition for writ of habeas corpus to a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983.

Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 

the present matter.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

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

THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner 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 Recommendation.” The assigned 

United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 

 

2 The Court notes that Petitioner did not sign his petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Case 1:20-cv-00136-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 02/11/20 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

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 Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 

834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00136-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 02/11/20 Page 4 of 4