Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00356/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00356-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John N. Katavich
Respondent
Lance Williams
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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LANCE WILLIAMS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JOHN N. KATAVICH, 

Warden, Wasco State Prison, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-00356 AC P 

ORDER 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all purposes 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and Local Rule 305(a). See ECF No. 5. 

 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 

the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

 Review of the petition indicates that petitioner was sentenced to a prison term of 13 years, 

8 months, following his January 2014 conviction for attempted extortion, dissuading a witness, 

and stalking. Although now incarcerated at California State Prison Solano, petitioner challenges 

the calculation of his classification score by Correctional Counselor Gibbens when petitioner was 

initially incarcerated at Wasco State Prison. Petitioner asserts that he should have received 10, 

Case 2:15-cv-00356-AC Document 7 Filed 04/22/15 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 

27 

28 

2

not 12, points for his detention and/or arrest in the 1990’s, and should not have received 4 points 

for a serious rule violation in 2010. Petitioner avers that these extra 6 points “cause a restraint on 

my liberty and freedom and due process” and mean that he “can’t be released earlier by way of 

good behavior and being transferred to a level 2 minimum custody where I can gain a 2 for 1 

credit status [].” Petitioner seeks an order of this court directing the Warden of Wasco State 

Prison “to investigate and correct my classification points and forward order to my current 

location.” ECF No. 1 at 6. Petitioner states that an appeal is pending on his 2014 conviction, in 

the California Court of Appeal, and that he has not sought direct or collateral review in the 

California Supreme Court. Id. at 2-4. 

 A state prisoner may pursue habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 “only on the 

ground he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate federal remedy when “a state 

prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he 

seeks is a determination that he is entitled to an immediate or speedier release from that 

imprisonment.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). However, “habeas jurisdiction 

is absent . . . where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the 

prisoner’s sentence.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) 

(citing Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818 (9th Cir. 1997)). 

 “Claims which pertain to prisoner’s classifications, especially individual custodial 

classification scores, are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition,” Davidson v. McClintock, 

2014 WL 2921900, *1 (D. Ariz. 2014) (collecting cases), because a judgment in petitioner’s favor 

would not “necessarily accelerate [his] release,” Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 859. “[A] challenge to 

classification status lack[s] habeas jurisdiction because the prisoner ‘would not be released from 

confinement or even be provided with a lesser term of confinement; rather, at most, he would 

receive a different or lower classification score.’” Davidson, 2014 WL 2921900 at *1 (quoting 

Franklin v. Gipson, 2013 WL 1339545, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2013)). 

In addition, in the present case, it is clear that petitioner has not exhausted his state court 

remedies. The exhaustion of available state remedies is a prerequisite to a federal court’s 

Case 2:15-cv-00356-AC Document 7 Filed 04/22/15 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 

27 

28 

3

consideration of claims sought to be presented in habeas corpus proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(b); see also Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); see also Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 

1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (completely unexhausted petition asserted viable claims must be 

dismissed without prejudice). 

For these reasons, the court finds that it is without jurisdiction to consider the instant 

petition, which will therefore be dismissed. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 

allows a district court to dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached 

exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted; 

 2. The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, see Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 

Cases; 

 3. Petitioners’ request that the court “stamp and certify” his “Petition to Obtain Report of 

Law Enforcement Agency,” for the purpose of obtaining his juvenile records, ECF No. 6, is 

denied as moot; and 

 4. This action is closed. 

DATED: April 21, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00356-AC Document 7 Filed 04/22/15 Page 3 of 3