Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Branden Willie Iseli, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Eastern District of California, along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. He named the San Joaquin County Jail as respondent. The court said a petitioner seeking § 2254 relief should instead name his custodian, which the order identifies as the Warden of Pelican Bay State Prison. It also noted that Rule 1(b) of the habeas rules permits a court to apply them to other habeas petitions, including those under § 2241.
On preliminary review under Rule 4, the court said it did not construe the petition as attacking Iseli's underlying convictions, which were the subject of a 2022 California Court of Appeal decision. An earlier federal habeas petition challenging them had been denied on the merits in March 2023. Before challenging those convictions again, the court explained, he must obtain authorization from the Ninth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Iseli later filed a motion asking the court to transfer the action to state court.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted in forma pauperis status after finding that Iseli cannot afford the costs of the action. It dismissed the petition with leave to amend within thirty days because it did not comply with Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The petition listed 78 grounds, some invoking the Eighth Amendment, unfair business practices, negligence and harassment, which the court said are not cognizable in habeas. It added that such civil rights claims must be dismissed from the habeas action. Any amended petition must carry the case number, be titled Amended Petition, focus on the challenged rules violation report, omit extraneous facts and claims, and summarize the facts supporting each claim. The Clerk was directed to send a habeas form.
The court could not tell whether habeas jurisdiction exists over the May 2022 rules violation report, because the petition did not clearly identify the guilty finding or its consequences. Under Nettles v. Grounds, a claim whose success would not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release falls outside the core of habeas and must be brought, if at all, under § 1983. The court did not decide that question and left it for the amended petition. It also advised Iseli that prisoners have no due process right to a particular classification or custody level. Any claim that he was booked under an improper name in 2017 appears barred by the one-year limitation period in § 2244(d)(1), and if it implicates his convictions it requires Ninth Circuit permission. A footnote states that the thirty-day deadline is not a finding that the petition is timely.
The court denied the transfer motion because Iseli cited no legal authority and the court has no jurisdiction to transfer the action to state court. To pursue his claims there, he must file a state action.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petition must specify its grounds and summarize supporting facts, and a list of 78 grounds mixing in negligence and unfair business practices claims does not satisfy Rule 2(c) or Rule 8.
- Eighth Amendment, harassment and similar civil rights claims are not cognizable in habeas and must be brought, if at all, under § 1983.
- A prison disciplinary challenge belongs in habeas only if success would necessarily lead to earlier release, so a petitioner should identify the finding and its consequences.
- A prisoner has no due process right to a particular classification or custody level.
- A federal court cannot transfer a case to state court, so a litigant who wants a state forum must file a new state action.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported screening order by a magistrate judge. It has no precedential weight and applies established authority such as Preiser v. Rodriguez and Nettles v. Grounds. Its value is as an example of how a court screens a sprawling pro se petition and sorts habeas claims from civil rights claims.
The dismissal is not a final judgment. Iseli has thirty days to file an amended petition. The court has not ruled on the merits of the disciplinary challenge or on whether habeas jurisdiction exists over it, and it has not decided timeliness.