Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01635/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01635-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesse T. Moten
Petitioner
Jeanne Woodford
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

JESSE T. MOTEN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

 v. )

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-cv-01635-OWW-TAG HC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

FROM A NON-PARTY WITNESS (Doc. 10)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR U.S. MARSHAL TO

EFFECT SERVICE ON RESPONDENT

WOODFORD (Doc. 11)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SEND PETITIONER A FORM FOR

FILING CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION

PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner, serving a 23-year-to-life sentence for a 1987 conviction for second degree murder,

filed his petition on August 1, 2005. (Doc. 1). Petitioner raises two issues in the petition itself:

(1) failure of the prison classification committee to “properly address issues, ‘mitigating’ factors of

documentation in [Petitioner’s] favor, making ‘pre-determined’ assessments (i.e., false reports and

false disciplinary write up’s [sic]),” which denied Petitioner his due process and equal protection

rights; and (2) retaliation by prison employees that subjected Petitioner to threats, discrimination,

and harassment. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-4). 

Attached to the petition is Petitioner’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of

request for preliminary injunction, that appears to set out in greater detail the issues raised in the

Case 1:05-cv-01635-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 5
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

petition. Specifically, Petitioner contends: (1) prison staff has engaged in a “vendetta” against him in

his capacity as chairman of the men’s advisory council, a committee designated by the warden to act

as a liaison between inmates and staff and to express general prison population concerns; (2) the

classification committee engaged in misconduct, including use of false documents and reports, and

disregard for “mitigating” documentary and “actual” facts, resulting in an increase in Petitioner’s

custody level; and (3) prison staff misconduct in conducting illegal cell searches, discriminatory

lock-downs of African-Americans, denial of law library access, and removal of prisoners to higher

security cells. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-18). Petitioner seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting such actions

in the future and damages in the amount of $43,000. (Id. at p. 18). 

On January 31, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to compel (Doc. 10), seeking an order from

this Court to compel a list of non-parties to appear in court and provide various documents Petitioner

listed in the motion, including, e.g., “the design criteria and specification of the ventilation system

for plaintiff’s housing unit at Corcoran State Prison,” “the results of any relative humidity and

ambient temperature measurements recorded in any housing unit at Corcoran,” and various reports

and files relating to Petitioner maintained by the prison staff. (Doc. 10, p. 5). Petitioner bases his

motion on Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), the general rule governing discovery in civil cases. 

Also on January 31, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for an order directing the U.S. Marshall

to effect service on Respondent Woodford of the aforementioned habeas petition and attached

motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. 11). 

DISCUSSION

A. The Petition Should Be Dismissed As Outside The Court’s Habeas Jurisdiction.

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show

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

Case 1:05-cv-01635-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 5
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 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. 

In his petition, Petitioner contends that state prison personnel conducted a “vendetta” of

harassment against him, discriminated against African-Americans, and committed various other civil

rights violations while acting under color of state law. Such allegations challenge the conditions,

not the fact, of Petitioner’s confinement. Therefore, they are claims properly brought under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, not under 18 U.S.C. § 2254. McCarthy, 500 U.S. at 141-142.

Petitioner apparently recognizes this distinction because in his motion to compel he refers to

this case as a “civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.” (Doc. 10, p. 1). Also,

Petitioner’s reliance upon Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) to obtain discovery to support his claims further

indicates that Petitioner intends to proceed on a civil rights action, not a habeas petition.

Accordingly, the Court will recommend that the petition be DISMISSED. The Court will

DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send Petitioner a complaint form for filing a civil rights action.

B. Petitioner’s Motion To Compel Discovery Must Be Denied.

Petitioner’s motion to compel discovery must be denied for several reasons. First, Petitioner

relies upon Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, the general discovery rule for civil cases, as a basis for requesting that

various named individuals produce certain documents and information. However, Rule 6(a) of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “a judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to

conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery.” 

Subsection (b) provides that “a party requesting discovery must provide reasons for the request.” 

Rule 6(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Thus, Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases makes application of the discovery rules contained in the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure discretionary with the Court upon a showing of good cause.

Here, because Petitioner is in essence raising civil rights claims that should have been

brought in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than as a federal habeas case under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, and because the Court’s jurisdiction in this case extends only to habeas proceedings, good

Case 1:05-cv-01635-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 09/13/06 Page 3 of 5
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

cause has not been established to permit discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to compel.

As an additional ground for denying this motion, the Court concludes that, in light of its

recommendation to dismiss the petition as outside the Court’s habeas jurisdiction, the motion to

compel must also be DENIED as MOOT.

C. Motion For U.S. Marshal To Effect Service On Respondent Woodford.

Pursuant to Local Rules, the Clerk is directed to serve copies of the Court's written orders on

all counsel who have appeared in the action. See L.R.5-137(f). In the normal course of screening

habeas corpus petitions, the Court may issue an order for Respondent to file an answer or other

responsive pleading. When and if the Court issues such an order, the Clerk of the Court, pursuant to

the applicable local rule, will serve copies of the Court’s order on any named Respondents. 

However, because such orders have yet to be issued in this case, Petitioner’s motion for U.S.

Marshal to effect service on Respondent Woodford is premature and must be DENIED.

More importantly, because of the Court’s recommendation that the habeas petition itself must

be dismissed, serving any Respondent in this action is both unnecessary and pointless. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s motion for U.S. Marshal to effect service on Respondent Woodford is DENIED. 

ORDER 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's Motion to Compel (Doc. 10), is DENIED; 

2. Petitioner’s Motion For U.S. Marshal to Effect Service on Respondent Woodford (Doc.

11), is DENIED; and,

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a form for filing a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED.

///

Case 1:05-cv-01635-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 09/13/06 Page 4 of 5
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

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

assigned to the 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

thirty (30) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, 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 Report and Recommendation.” Replies to the

Objections shall be served and filed within ten court days (plus three days if served by mail) after

service of the Objections. The Court 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 Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01635-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 09/13/06 Page 5 of 5