Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01347/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01347-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfred Buensalida
Petitioner
Lake
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED BUENSALIDA,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN LAKE,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01347-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT PETITION BE DISMISSED FOR 

LACK OF JURISDICTION

ECF No. 1

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE AND 

SEND PETITIONER A § 1983 COMPLAINT 

FORM

Petitioner Alfred Buensalida, a federal prisoner without counsel, petitioned for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the court for 

preliminary review. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, we must examine 

the habeas corpus petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 

Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). At this early stage, Rule 4 gives “courts 

an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions.” Ross v. Williams, 

896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

Case 1:19-cv-01347-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 02/10/20 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

Discussion 

A challenge to the manner of execution of a federal criminal sentence is properly filed in a 

§ 2241 petition. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008). In contrast, 

“[r]equests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a [42 U.S.C.] 

§ 1983 action.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004). Here, petitioner claims that the 

circumstances of his confinement violate his right to proper medical care; he does not challenge 

the manner of execution of his sentence. He alleges that the prison did not provide him adequate 

medical care for his withering left hand; he would like the prison to provide this court with a 

report listing the actions taken to treat his hand. ECF No. 1 at 3. Because petitioner’s claim and 

request are not cognizable under § 2241, we recommend that they be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

We next consider whether to convert the petition into a § 1983 complaint. “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 (remanding case to district 

court to consider claim under § 1983). When filing a § 1983 claim, courts require plaintiffs to 

“plead that (1) the defendants acting under color of state law (2) deprived plaintiffs of rights 

secured by the Constitution or federal statutes.” Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 

(9th Cir. 1986). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, “within the meaning of 

§ 1983, ‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform 

an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” 

Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). There is no respondeat superior liability—

i.e., liability of a supervisor for acts of a supervisee. Each defendant is only liable for his or her 

own misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009).

We decline to convert the petition into a § 1983 complaint for two reasons. First, the 

complaint is not amenable to conversion on its face. Petitioner’s allegations about the prison 

Case 1:19-cv-01347-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 02/10/20 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

conditions are too conclusory to state a § 1983 claim. Petitioner has named only the warden as 

the respondent; petitioner has not named the people who directly committed the affirmative acts 

or omissions that violated his rights. Second, conversion may be unfair to petitioner. The filing 

fee for a habeas corpus petition is $5—and if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the 

fee is forgiven. For civil rights cases, however, the filing fee is $350 plus a $50 administrative 

fee. Under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, petitioner would be required to pay the $350 

filing fee, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way of deductions from his trust account.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). If we were to convert this action to a § 1983 action, petitioner would 

face the larger filing and administrative fees—and with this in mind he might prefer not to file. 

While we decline to convert the petition, petitioner remains free to file a § 1983 

complaint. A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Iqbal, 556 at 678. If the 

allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the 

complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” 

Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what 

plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to 

relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) 

(citations omitted). The complaint must state what actions each named defendant took that 

deprived plaintiff of constitutional or other federal rights. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Order

The clerk’s office is directed to send petitioner a § 1983 complaint form. The clerk of 

court is directed to assign this case to a district judge who will review the findings and 

recommendations. 

Case 1:19-cv-01347-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 02/10/20 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

Findings and Recommendations

We recommend that the court dismiss the petition and decline to issue a certificate of 

appealability. Under 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, we submit the findings and 

recommendations to the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the case. Within fourteen days 

of the service of the findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections to the 

findings and recommendations. That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the 

findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:19-cv-01347-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 02/10/20 Page 4 of 4