Opinion
Case No. 5:19-00058 PSG (ADS)
07-11-2019
DAVID SABINO QUAIR, III, Petitioner, v. CSP-CDCR-DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 23, 2018, Petitioner David Sabino Quair, III, a California state prisoner, constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. No. 1]. On January 23, 2019, the Court received Petitioner's First Amended Petition. [Dkt. No. 11]. A review of the pleadings and records in this case reveals that Petitioner fails to allege a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice.
Where necessary, the Court takes judicial notice of the public records. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) ("The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) ("[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as the records of an inferior court in other cases."); Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that a court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record).
II. RELEVANT PRIOR HISTORY
On April 6, 2018, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to resisting an executive officer in violation of California Penal Code Section 69 and was sentenced to 32 months in custody. [Dkt. No. 4, pp. 42, 56-57]. On December 23, 2018, Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court using the Northern District of California's federal habeas petition form. [Dkt. No. 1]. Although far from the model of clarity, the Petition raises several claims challenging various aspects of Petitioner's conditions of confinement. [Id.]. On January 23, 2019, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition ("FAP") using the federal habeas petition form required by the Central District of California. [Dkt. No. 11]. In the FAP, Petitioner sets forth five grounds for relief, as follows:
1. "Unauthorized use of personal identifying information, mail theft - Calif. Penal Code 530.5;"
2. "Obstruction of mails generally Title 18 U.S.C.S. § 1701 . . . order of denial without discovery received;"
3. "Interlocutory appeals abuse by CSP- San Quentin, CSP-Calif. Inst. for Men, et seq.;"
4. "Failure to protect from harm by CSP-San Quentin and CSP-California Inst. for Men . . . two inmate appeals with CSP-California Institution for Men that are being neglected by the administration to date;" and
5. "Medical malpractice/medical negligence/ADA violations erroneous." [Dkt. No. 11, pp. 5-6].
Petitioner further alleges "All petitions at every level of judiciary relief are obstructed and manipulated by CDCR and numerous others." [Id., p. 7]. In addition to the two federal habeas petitions filed in this case, Petitioner has filed with the Court several volumes of "evidence" and "exhibits." [Dkt. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 10, 14 15, 16]. These filings appear to be a miscellaneous collection of Petitioner's underlying state court records, previously-filed state habeas petitions, medical records, and correspondence. Petitioner fails to provide context or explanation for the documents and they are not incorporated by reference in either of the federal habeas petitions filed by Petitioner in this case.
In addition to the instant action, Petitioner has filed three other federal habeas petitions and nineteen federal civil rights actions in this Court. See Case Nos. 19-0650 PSG (ADS); 19-0878 PSG (ADS); 19-1188 PSG (ADS); 18-2595 PSG (ADS); 19-0022 PSG (ADS); 19-0085 PSG (ADS); 19-0087 PSG (ADS); 19-0093 PSG (ADS); 19-0454 PSG (ADS); 19-0587 PSG (ADS); 19-0607 PSG (ADS); 19-0699 PSG (ADS); 19-0750 PSG (ADS); 19-0768 PSG (ADS); 19-0769 PSG (ADS); 19-0774 PSG (ADS); 19-0776 PSG (ADS); 19-0782 PSG (ADS); 19-0783 PSG (ADS); 19-0786 PSG (ADS); 19-0791 PSG (ADS); 19-1149 PSG (ADS). Furthermore, a search on PACER reveals that Petitioner has multiple federal actions pending in other Districts Courts in California. See PACER, www.pacer.gov.
The assigned Magistrate Judge issued an Order Summarily Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on July 3, 2019. [Dkt. No. 17]. Upon further consideration, the assigned Magistrate Judge sua sponte issued an order vacating the summary dismissal and judgment pursuant to Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). [Dkt. No. 19]. Nonetheless, this case must be dismissed for the following reasons.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to State a Cognizable Claim
Because an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, the Court here will treat the FAP as the operative federal habeas petition. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting the "well-established doctrine that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading"); see also Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 925-28 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that claims that are voluntarily dismissed are waived if not repled in an amended pleading); Sechrest v. Ignacio, 549 F.3d 789, 804 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating amendments generally constitute waivers of omitted arguments or claims from previous versions).
The Court has the authority to dismiss habeas actions sua sponte. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, "the court must summarily dismiss the petition without ordering a responsive pleading." Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 641, n.1 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Rule 4). Summary dismissal of a habeas petition is appropriate where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). Under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, a federal court shall entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus "only on the ground that [the petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for challenging the legality or duration of confinement while a civil rights action is the proper method to challenge conditions of confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991).
Here, the Court has screened the instant FAP and finds it clear on the face of the FAP that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Petitioner's five grounds for relief appear to solely challenge the prison staffs' handling of his mail, legal process, and healthcare treatment. [Dkt. No. 11]. Those challenges concern the conditions of his confinement and must be raised in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Petitioner does not appear to challenge the legality or duration of his confinement, the FAP fails to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. Furthermore, although Petitioner utilizes the standard Central District form, his grounds for relief challenge conditions of his incarceration by asserting vague and conclusory statements. See [Dkt. No. 11, pp. 5-6] (asserting claims such as "Obstruction of mails generally" and "Interlocutory Appeals Abuse" by prison staff). Under the supporting facts section for each claim, Petitioner does not allege any facts and only references case numbers whose meanings are unclear because Petitioner fails to provide any context for them. [Id.].
To the extent Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, the Court has considered whether to construe Petitioner's allegations as a civil rights complaint. See Hanson v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 729 (9th Cir. 1974) ("Despite the labeling of his complaint, [the petitioner] was, therefore, entitled to have his action treated as a claim for relief under the Civil Rights Act."). However, Petitioner has already filed nineteen civil rights complaints pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this Court. See Case Nos. 18-2595 PSG (ADS); 19-0022 PSG (ADS); 19-0085 PSG (ADS); 19-0087 PSG (ADS); 19-0093 PSG (ADS); 19-0454 PSG (ADS); 19-0587 PSG (ADS); 19-0607 PSG (ADS); 19-0699 PSG (ADS); 19-0750 PSG (ADS); 19-0768 PSG (ADS); 19-0769 PSG (ADS); 19-0774 PSG (ADS); 19-0776 PSG (ADS); 19-0782 PSG (ADS); 19-0783 PSG (ADS); 19-0786 PSG (ADS); 19-0791 PSG (ADS); 19-1149 PSG (ADS). Those complaints allege similar claims regarding Petitioner's legal filings and medical treatment. Therefore, it is unnecessary to construe the current federal habeas petition as a civil rights complaint.
B. Request for Appointment of Counsel
On January 23, 2019, Petitioner filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel in a Federal Habeas Corpus Case. [Dkt. No. 12]. Petitioner contends that his personal and legal mail is being obstructed and he is prevented from accessing legal resources. [Id., p. 3]. Petitioner further alleges that prison officials failed to protect him from harm, neglected to dispense his medication, and interfered with his legal filings. [Id., pp. 4-7]. Petitioner argues that appointment of counsel is necessary to protect his due process rights. [Id., p. 6].
There is no constitutional right to counsel in connection with a habeas petition. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 429 (9th Cir. 1993). The decision of whether to appoint counsel for Petitioner is within the Court's discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(h), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) (stating that "the court may appoint counsel" when "the interests of justice so require"). In deciding Petitioner's request, the Court evaluates both Petitioner's likelihood of success on the merits and his ability to articulate the claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Appointment of counsel is required in at least two situations: (1) when the court determines that counsel is "necessary for effective utilization of discovery procedures" and (2) when the court determines that an evidentiary hearing is required. Id.
Here, the Court finds that neither the Constitution nor the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel for Petitioner. Rather, as explained above, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief based on his claims. Because Petitioner's claims in this Petition fail on the merits, Petitioner's Request for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
V. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has failed to state a claim cognizable under federal habeas relief and has filed multiple civil rights actions asserts these same claims. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and Central District of California Local Rule 72-3.2. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. The Court further denies all other pending motions as moot.
On January 9, 2019, Petitioner filed a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Application to Proceed in District court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs in a single docket entry. [Dkt. No. 2]. On January 22, 2019, Petitioner filed a "Motion to Grant an Order to Locate and Decide All Motions to All Districts of California United States District Court for All Petitions Filed Since November 2018." [Dkt. No. 7]. On January 23, 2019, Petitioner filed another Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs but fail to include all the pages, including the verification page. [Dkt. No. 9].
VI. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
In addition, for reasons stated above, the Court finds that Petitioner has not shown that "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether:" (1) "the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right;" and (2) "the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Thus, a certificate of appealability is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 07/11/2019
/s/_________
HONORABLE PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ
United States District Judge Presented by: /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth
HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH
United States Magistrate Judge