1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEVI DALE LASTER, JR., No. 2:25-cv-1099 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER and 14 ANGELA R. ROBINSON., FINDINGS AND RECOMMNEDATION 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a county prisoner proceeding without an attorney, who has filed a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the court for preliminary review under 19 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned 20 recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 21 I. Background 22 Petitioner is in custody at Butte County Jail.1 ECF No. 1 at 2. In the past five months, he 23 has filed seven civil rights complaints under

and five habeas corpus petitions. 24 1 Petitioner appears to be detained based on a criminal case in the Superior Court of California, 25 County of Butte, No. 24CF04225, which is currently stayed. The court takes judicial notice of Case No. 24CF04225. United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 26

(9th Cir. 1992) (The court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to 27 matters at issue.” (citations omitted)); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 28 questioned). 1 See Laster v. USA, No. 2:24-cv-3312 DJC CKD (E.D. Cal.) (§ 1983); Laster v. State of 2 California, No. 2:24-cv-3708 DAD DMC (E.D. Cal.) (§ 1983); Laster v. Robinson, No. 2:25-cv- 3 0966 JDP (E.D. Cal.) (§ 1983); Laster v. Beavers, No. 2:25-cv-0968 EFB (E.D. Cal.) (§ 1983); 4 Laster v. Cheatley, No. 2:25-cv-0979 CSK (E.D. Cal.) (§ 1983); Laster v. Mimmick, 2:25-cv- 5 1134 CSK (E.D. Cal.) (§ 1983); Laster v. Wentz, No. 2:25-cv-1135 EFB (E.D. Cal.) (§ 1983); 6 Laster v. USA, 2:25-cv-0440 DC CSK (E.D. Cal.) (habeas); 2: Laster v. State of California, 2:25- 7 cv-0481 DAD SCR (E.D. Cal.) (habeas); Laster v. Cheatley, No. 2:25-cv-1098 EFB (E.D. Cal.) 8 (habeas); Laster v. Robinson, No. 2:25-cv-1099 AC (E.D. Cal.) (habeas); Laster v. Beavers, No. 9 2:25-cv-1172 CKD (E.D. Cal.) (habeas). 10 On April 11, 2024, the court received several documents from petitioner: (1) a statement 11 of consent; (2) an application to proceed in forma pauperis; (3) a request for conformed copies; 12 (4) a letter explaining that plaintiff has filed multiple applications to proceed in forma pauperis, is 13 attaching an application to proceed in forma pauperis, with a copy of his inmate trust account for 14 the past six months, and “a writ of a filled out habeas corpus”; (5) a petition for writ of habeas 15 corpus; and (6) four Butte County Sheriff’s Officer Inmate Request form. Because the documents 16 were captioned Levi Dale Laster Jr. v. Angel R. Robinson, documents (1)-(4) were filed in 17 existing case number 2:25-cv-0966 JDP. See Laster v. Robinson, No. 2:25-cv-0966 JDP,2 ECF 18 No. 10-12. However, because (1) a petition for habeas corpus is different from a civil rights 19 complaint, (2) petitioner did not include an existing case number, and (3) the respondent named 20 was not named in any of petitioner’s previously filed habeas petitions, the clerk opened a new 21 habeas case and filed documents (5) and (6) as the habeas petition in this case. See Laster v. 22 Robinson, No. 2:25-cv-1099 AC, ECF No. 1. 23 II. Screening Standard 24 In screening the habeas petition, the court applies the Rule 4 framework of the Rules 25 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Under Rule 4’s standard, if it 26 2 Laster v. Robinson, No. 2:25-cv-0966 JDP, is a § 1983 case alleging that defendants Robinson, 27 Kumel, Richards, Racial, Jack and “a lot more people” took petitioner’s personal belongings, threatened to beat him to death, called the cops on him, and took his freedom since October 8, 28 2024. See ECF No. 9 (first amended civil rights complaint) 1 plainly appears from the petition, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that 2 the moving party is not entitled to relief, then the district court is authorized to summarily dismiss 3 a habeas petition. Neiss v. Bludworth,

(9th Cir. 2024); Herbst v. Cook, 260

, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001). 5 Habeas relief is available if the prisoner’s claim in the petition attacks the legality or 6 duration of his confinement. Wilkinson v. Dotson,

(2005). Habeas relief is not 7 cognizable if a favorable judgment for the petitioner would not “necessarily lead to his immediate 8 or earlier release from confinement.” Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016). A 9 challenge to conditions of confinement is properly pursued through a § 1983 civil rights action, 10 not a habeas petition, because a favorable judgment would not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s 11 sentence. See Ramirez v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“habeas jurisdiction is 12 absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not 13 necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”). 14 III. Allegations in the Habeas Petition3 15 The petition names one respondent, Angel R. Robinson. It lists petitioner’s superior court 16 criminal case number 24CF04225 and federal civil case No. 2:25-cv-0966-JDP; notes that 17 petitioner has a criminal court lawyer, Christopher Carlos; and repeatedly states that petitioner 18 “need[s] to be in pro per in civil court” and that he “[n]eeds a civil court date.” ECF No. 1 at 2-6. 19 As noted above, attached to the petition are four inmate requests forms. Id. at 7-10. Three of 20 these relate to petitioner’s concerns that his mail to the court is being stolen or not delivered, and 21 one relates to petitioner’s concerns that he is being poisoned at the jail. Id. Only one of them, 22 which relates to mail issues, mentions respondent by name. See id. at 10. 23 IV. Discussion 24 Petitioner does not appear to make any claims challenging his confinement and the only 25 relief he appears to seek is a civil court date and designation as a pro per plaintiff. Because there 26 are no claims for relief and petitioner is not seeking immediate or earlier release from 27 3 Citations to the docket in this section refer to the instant case, Laster v. Robinson, No. 2:25-cv- 28 1099 AC. 1 confinement, the court finds the petition fails to state a cognizable habeas claim. 2 In situations like these, the court considers whether to convert the habeas petition to a civil 3 rights action. See Nettles,

(“a district court may construe a petition for habeas 4 corpus to pleas a cause of action under § 1983 after notifying and obtaining informed consent 5 from the prisoner”). However, because petitioner does not appear to be challenging his 6 conditions of confinement, and instead simply appears to be seeking an order designating him a 7 pro per plaintiff and setting a court date, the undersigned will not recommend this action be 8 converted and will instead recommend that the habeas petition be dismissed without prejudice.4 9 The court notes that petitioner has filed similar “habeas petitions” citing his various civil 10 rights cases that also seek to proceed “in pro per.” This suggests petitioner may be under the 11 mistaken impression that he requires a habeas petition to obtain the order that he seeks. Petitioner 12 is informed that, at this time, he is considered pro se, meaning proceeding without counsel, in all 13 of his pending civil rights cases in this federal court. This includes Laster v. State of California, 14 No. 2:24-cv-3708 DAD DMC; Laster v. Robinson, No. 2:25-cv-0966 JDP; Laster v. Beavers, No. 15 2:25-cv-0968 EFB; Laster v. Cheatley, No. 2:25-cv-0979 CSK; Laster v. Mimmick, 2:25-cv-1134 16 CSK; Laster v. Wentz, No. 2:25-cv-1135 EFB. In the future, if petitioner seeks court 17 documentation verifying that he is proceeding pro se in any of his cases, he should file a motion 18 seeking verification and should not use the habeas corpus form. 19 V. Plain Language Summary for Not Represented Party 20 Since you are acting as your own attorney in this case, the court wants to make sure that 21 the words of this order are understood. The following information is meant to explain this order 22 in plain English and is not intended as legal advice. 23 The court has reviewed your petition for writ of habeas corpus and finds that it does not 24 properly raise a habeas corpus claim because you do not seek immediate or earlier release. 25 Instead, it appears you merely seek confirmation that you are proceeding without counsel in your 26

27 4 If petitioner wants to challenge his conditions of confinement, he may do so by initiating a separate civil rights complaint or by amending any of his currently pending civil cases if 28 appropriate. 1 || civil rights case, No. 25-cv-0966 JDP. This type of request is not properly brought in a habeas 2 || petition. It is therefore being recommended that your petition be dismissed without prejudice. 3 If you disagree with this recommendation, you have 21 days to file a written explanation 4 | why it is wrong. Label your explanation with case number 2:25-cv-1099 AC, and as “Objections 5 || to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge assigned to your case 6 || will review any objections and make the final decision. You may also notify the court that you 7 || want to dismiss this case if you did not intend to file a separate habeas petition. 8 In the future, if you need federal court documentation of your pro se status in a particular 9 || case, you may file a motion in that case seeking verification. You should not use the habeas 10 || corpus form for this purpose. Using the habeas form to seek relief other than your immediate or 11 | earlier release from confinement will result in delays in the court’s consideration of your requests. 12 VI. Conclusion 13 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERD that the Clerk of the Court 14 | shall assign a district judge to this case. 15 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 || be summarily dismissed without prejudice. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 19 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 20 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 21 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 22 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Petitioner 23 || 1s advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 24 || District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 25 || DATED: April 25, 2025 ~ Cttt0 Lhar—e_ 26 ALLISONCLAIRE. 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28