United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER VACATING JULY 8, 2019 DEFICIENCY ORDER; DENYING
IN FORMA PAUPERIS REQUEST; AND DISMISSING ACTION
E. KOBAYASHI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Francis Grandinetti's pleading entitled:
“Disciplinary Sentence and Administrative (LTAS)
Segregation Lawsuit. Jail Habeas Corpus, etc.” ECF No.
1. Grandinetti apparently challenges disciplinary sanctions
imposed on him at the Saguaro Correctional Center
(“SCC”. Although Grandinetti labels his pleading
as seeking habeas corpus relief, the Court construes it as a
civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. See, e.g., Nettles v. Grounds, 830
F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding challenges
to disciplinary proceedings should be brought under §
1983 if there is no loss of good time credits).
pleading, and the exhibits attached to it, lack any coherent
claims or explanation for bringing this suit, beyond the
suggestion that Grandinetti was disciplined. He attaches an
approved “Indigent Status Request, ” to his
pleading, which the Court construes as a request to proceed
in forma pauperis.
following reasons, the July 8, 2019 Deficiency Order is
VACATED, Grandinetti's request to proceed in forma
pauperis is DENIED, and the Complaint and this action are
DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk is
DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the file.
law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to
imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. §
2254, and a complaint under . . . 42 U.S.C. §
1983.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750
(2004) (per curiam). “[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent,
and a § 1983 action is proper, where a successful
challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten
the prisoner's sentence.” Ramirez v.
Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). “[W]hen
a prisoner's claim would not ‘necessarily spell
speedier release,' that claim does not lie at ‘the
core of habeas corpus,' and may be brought, if at all,
under § 1983.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562
U.S. 521, 535 n.13 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson v.
Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)).
within Grandinetti's pleading suggests that his
thirty-day suspension from attending “SHIP1” or
“SHIP2” programs, which he refused to attend,
will lengthen his sentence. Nor does his six-month sanction
in administrative segregation appear to affect the term of
his sentence. Rather, Grandinetti sought administrative
segregation when he refused to accept a roommate, which
resulted in his sanctions. Thus, the Court construes
Grandinetti's pleading, to the extent that it alleges any
coherent claims, as a civil rights complaint challenging the
conditions of his confinement. Grandinetti may have labeled
this pleading as seeking habeas relief to avoid the penalties
imposed on his filings by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1122-23, n.12 (9th Cir.
2005) (recognizing that some habeas petitions are civil
rights actions mislabeled as habeas petitions to avoid §
1915(g)'s penalties) (“Andrews I”).
has accrued three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),
may not bring a civil rights action without complete
prepayment of the filing fee, unless he plausibly alleges
that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at
the time he filed his pleading. See id.; Andrews
v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“Andrews II”). Grandinetti alleges no
facts showing that he is in imminent danger of serious
physical injury and may not proceed in forma pauperis.
See Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir.
Court construes Grandinetti's pleading as seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Grandinetti's Indigent Inmate Status Request is construed
as a request to proceed in forma pauperis in this action and
is DENIED and the July 8, 2019 Deficiency Order is VACATED.
This action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Any pending motions are DENIED. The Court will take
no further action beyond processing any notice of appeal.
Clerk of Court shall enter judgment ...