1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FLOYD DEWAINE SCOTT, Case No. 2:24-cv-10066-JVS-RAO

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION AND DENYING 14 CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON et CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY al., 15 Respondents. 16

17 On November 15, 2024, Petitioner Floyd Dewaine Scott (“Petitioner”), a 18 California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 pursuant to

(“Petition”). (Dkt. No. 1.) The Petition states that 20 Respondents California State Prison and the Los Angeles County Transportation 21 Department are in violation of California Department of Corrections and 22 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) policy, as well as federal and state law, that requires 23 inmates be provided three meals per day, two of which must be hot. (Id. at 1–2.) The 24 Petition seeks an order directing Respondents to provide Petitioner with the meals to 25 which he is entitled. (Id. at 8–9.) 26 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 27 District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, requires a district court to dismiss a petition 28 1 when “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner 2 is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Here, the Court concludes that summary 3 dismissal of the Petition is required because Petitioner’s claim is not properly brought 4 as a habeas action. 5 “Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its 6 duration are the province of habeas corpus.” Muhammad v. Close,

, 750 7 (2004). “[R]equests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be 8 presented in a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 action.” Id. In Nettles v. Grounds, the Ninth 9 Circuit held that habeas corpus and civil rights are mutually exclusive remedies for 10 prisoners.

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). A claim lies at the core 11 of habeas relief only if success would “necessarily lead to immediate or speedier 12 release.”

. A Section 1983 action is the “exclusive vehicle for claims 13 brought by state prisoners that are not within the core of habeas corpus.”

. 14 To fall within the core of habeas corpus relief, a successful claim must “necessarily 15 demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”

. 16 Here, Petitioner’s claim regarding the alleged failure of Respondents to 17 provide him with his daily meals does not fall within the core of habeas relief 18 because, even if he were successful on his claim, such success “would not necessarily 19 lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement.” Nettles,

. 20 While there are circumstances when a habeas petition may be converted into a 21 Section 1983 civil rights action, the Court concludes that conversion is inappropriate 22 here. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935–36. A civil rights lawsuit differs from a habeas 23 action in a variety of ways. For instance, prisoner civil rights actions are subject to 24 a filing fee of $350, a heavier financial burden than the $5 habeas filing fee. See 28

. Ordinarily, a prisoner initiating a civil rights action must pay the 26 filing fee up front or obtain permission to do so over time. See

. 27 Here, the Court takes judicial notice that Petitioner, who has accumulated three 28 strikes pursuant to

(g), is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis 1 || absent certain criteria not applicable here and thus would be required to pay the full 2 || filing fee of $350. See Order Denying Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of 3 || Filing Fees at 2, Scott v. Fernald, No. 2:22-cv-7855-JVS-RAO (C.D. Cal. dismissed 4 || Nov. 1, 2023), ECF No. 10 (“[Petitioner] has filed three or more actions or appeals 5 || that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which 6 || relief may be granted (1.e., “strikes”) pursuant to

(g).”). As 7 || Petitioner has not indicated a desire to pay the full fee, the Court declines to convert 8 || the instant habeas matter to a Section 1983 civil rights action.' 9 Additionally, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 10 || Cases in the United States District Court, the Court has considered whether a 11 || certificate of appealability is warranted in this case. See

(c)(2); 12 || Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). The Court concludes that a 13 || certificate of appealability is not warranted. 14 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED 15 || without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 16 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 18 19 || DATED: December 16, 2024 asst lel 21 TO? Nd J —

(“JAMES V. SEUNA 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 | To ' The Petition was not accompanied by a filing fee or a request to proceed without 28 prepayment of the full filing fee. See Dkt. No. 2.