(HC) Uhuru v. People of the State of California
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 27 28 1 On June 19, 2020, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition (“F
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a certificate of appealability (COA) following a Ninth Circuit remand in a habeas corpus case that had been dismissed because the petitioner was challenging conditions of confinement rather than the fact or duration of his detention. The court denied the COA, reasoning that the petitioner had not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right because he was pursuing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in a separate case.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Denial of Certificate of Appealability“Therefore, the application for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.” | substantial evidence | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) and *Slack v. McDaniel*. Because the petitioner's claims regarding conditions of confinement are not cognizable in a § 2254 habeas proceeding (which addresses the fact or duration of confinement), the petitioner cannot make a 'substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right' within the context of this habeas petition. The proper vehicle for such claims is a § 1983 action, which the petitioner has already initiated in a separate case. Therefore, the denial is legally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies that the petitioner's claims regarding conditions of confinement are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Since the habeas petition was dismissed on the basis that it challenged conditions rather than the fact or duration of confinement, and the petitioner has already filed a § 1983 action for those claims, there is no constitutional right denial to be appealed in the habeas context. The court applied the correct legal standard for a COA and reached the correct conclusion based on the procedural history.
Opinion
1 ` 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KOHEN DIALLO UHURU, Case No.: 20cv746-CAB-RBM 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE 13 v. OF APPEALABILITY [Doc. No. 15] 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District 19 of California on April 3, 2020. [Doc. No. 1.] The case was transferred to this Court on 20 April 20, 2020. [Doc. No. 4.] On April 28, 2020, the Court dismissed the action without 21 prejudice and with leave to amend because Petitioner had failed to either pay the $5.00 22 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, failed to name the proper 23 respondent, and failed to allege exhaustion of his state judicial remedies. [Doc. No. 6.] 24 Petitioner was given until July 3, 2020, to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or move to 25 proceed in forma pauperis and file a First Amended Petition that cured the pleading 26 deficiencies outlined in the Court’s April 28, 2020 Order. Id. 27 28 1 On June 19, 2020, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition (“FAP”) and a motion 2 to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. Nos. 7-8.] The Court granted Petitioner’s motion to 3 proceed in forma pauperis on August 13, 2020 and dismissed the case without prejudice 4 and with leave to amend because Petitioner was seeking to challenge the conditions of his 5 confinement and not the fact or length of his incarceration. [Doc. No. 9.] Petitioner was 6 told that if he wished to challenge his state court conviction, he must file a Second 7 Amended Petition no later than October 18, 2020, and if he wished to challenge the 8 conditions of his confinement, he must file a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9 § 1983 which would be given a new case number. Id. On October 9, 2020, Petitioner filed 10 a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but put case no. 20cv0746 CAB 11 (RBM) on the document. [Doc. No. 10.] The document was then filed in error in this 12 case. Accordingly, on October 19, 2020, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to file 13 Petitioner’s complaint [Doc. No. 10] as a new civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14 1983 and to close this case. [Doc. No. 11.]1 15 On December 14, 2020, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. [Doc. No. 13.] On 16 December 17, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an order remanding the matter to the District 17 Court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability. [Doc. 18 No. 15.] 19 A petitioner complaining of detention arising from state court proceedings must 20 obtain a certificate of appealability to file an appeal of the final order in a federal habeas 21 proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2007). The district court may issue a certificate 22 of appealability if the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 23 constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). To make a “substantial showing,” the petitioner 24 must “demonstrat[e] that ‘reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of 25 the constitutional claims debatable[.]’ ” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th 26 27 1 Petitioner’s civil rights complaint [Doc. No. 10] was then filed as a new case in this court, case no. 28 1 || Cir.2002) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Here, Petitioner has 2 made a “substantial showing” as to any of the claims raised by his Petition, as 3 || Petitioner confirmed that he is challenging the conditions of his confinement, and he has 4 ||submitted a civil rights complaint which has been filed under a new case number. 5 || Therefore, the application for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: December 17, 2020 € Z 8 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo ? United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28