1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRUCE WAYNE MORRIS, No. 2:25-cv-2678 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER and 14 SIERRA COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE, et FINDINGS AND RECOMMNEDATION al., 15 Respondent. 16

17 Petitioner is a state inmate proceeding without an attorney, who has filed a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 6. This 19 matter is before the court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 20 Cases. 21 I. Screening Standard 22 In screening the habeas petition, the court applies the Rule 4 framework of the Rules 23 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Under Rule 4’s standard, if it 24 plainly appears from the petition, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that 25 the moving party is not entitled to relief, then the district court is authorized to summarily dismiss 26 a habeas petition. Neiss v. Bludworth,

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

, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001). 28 1 Habeas relief is available if the prisoner’s claim in the petition attacks the legality or 2 duration of his confinement. Wilkinson v. Dotson,

(2005). Habeas relief is not 3 cognizable if a favorable judgment for the petitioner would not “necessarily lead to his immediate 4 or earlier release from confinement.” Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016). 5 II. Allegations in the Petition 6 Petitioner is in custody at California Health Care Facility. ECF No. 1 at 1. He alleges that 7 the Sierra County Clerk’s Office or the probation office submitted false information to Megan’s 8 Law, a government website, regarding charges petitioner was never charged with, tried for, or 9 convicted of. Id. at 3. He further alleges that because of the slander published on the website, his 10 family has severed ties with him, he has lost contact with two of his friends, and the stress has 11 impacted his health. Id. at 4-5. 12 In various sections of the petition, petitioner states that he is not seeking to appeal his 13 conviction or a sentence reduction through this writ. Id. at 4, 6. Instead, the sole focus of the writ 14 is to address petitioner’s defamation claims against Sierra County clerk’s office and the probation 15 office. Id. 16 III. Discussion 17 Because the success of petitioner’s defamation claim would not lead to petitioner’s 18 immediate or earlier release from confinement, the court finds the petition fails to state a 19 cognizable habeas claim. To the extent petitioner seeks to bring a defamation claim against 20 Sierra County Clerk’s office and/or the probation office, he may seek to assert a “defamation 21 plus” claim under § 1983, which “requires an allegation of injury to a plaintiff’s reputation from 22 defamation accompanied by an allegation of injury to a recognizable property or liberty interest,” 23 or under state tort law. Crowe, 608 F.3d at 442-44 (state law defamation and § 1983 defamation 24 plus claims);

(defamation), 45 (libel), 46 (slander). 25 In situations like these, the court considers whether to convert the habeas petition to a civil 26 rights action. See Nettles,

(“a district court may construe a petition for habeas 27 corpus to plead a cause of action under § 1983 after notifying and obtaining informed consent 28 from the prisoner”). However, the petition is not amenable to conversion because it is unclear 1 whether petitioner is pursuing a defamation claim under state tort law and/or § 1983, and to the 2 extent he is asserting defamation under § 1983, the petition lacks specific allegations against each 3 respondent, stating what each respondent did or did not do that violated petitioner’s federal rights. 4 See Johnson v. Duffy,

, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (to state a claim for relief under section 5 1983, plaintiff must link each individual defendant with some affirmative act or omission that 6 shows a violation of plaintiff’s federal rights); Siegert v. Gilley,

(1991) 7 (“Defamation, by itself, is a tort actionable under the laws of most States, but not a constitutional 8 violation.”); Nurre v. Whitehead,

(9th Cir. 2009) (violations of state law 9 cannot be remedied under § 1983 unless they also violate a federal constitutional or statutory 10 right). Moreover, due to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) filing fee requirements,1 its 11 provisions requiring sua sponte screening of complaints, and its limits on the number of actions a 12 prisoner may be permitted to file in forma pauperis, a prisoner should not be obligated to proceed 13 with a civil rights action unless he clearly expresses a desire to do so. See

& 14 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. 15 Accordingly, it is recommended that the habeas corpus petition be dismissed without 16 prejudice to filing a state law tort and/or § 1983 action should petitioner choose to do so.2 17 IV. Plain Language Summary for Not Represented Party 18 Since you are acting as your own attorney in this case, the court wants to make sure that 19 the words of this order are understood. The following information is meant to explain this order 20 in plain English and is not intended as legal advice. 21 The court has reviewed your petition for writ of habeas corpus and finds that because your 22 petition does not attack the legality or duration of your confinement, and seeks relief based on a 23 claim of defamation, it cannot be brought in a habeas petition. It is therefore being recommended 24 1 Prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis in § 1983 cases must pay the $350 filing fee, and any 25 award against the prisoner, by way of periodic deductions from the prisoner’s trust account, see 26

(b)(1), regardless of whether the action is ultimately dismissed. Bruce v. Samuels,

, 85-86 (2016). 27 2 If petitioner elects to pursue only a state tort action for defamation, he must do so in state court. A complaint containing a federal constitutional claim under § 1983 may be filed in either state or 28 federal court. 1 | that your federal habeas petition be dismissed without prejudice to filing a federal civil rights 2 || action or a state tort action. 3 If you disagree with this recommendation, you have 14 days to file a written explanation 4 || why it is wrong. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 || Recommendations.” The district judge assigned to your case will review any objections and 6 || make the final decision. 7 V. Conclusion 8 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERD that: 9 1. The Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this case. 10 2. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is granted. 11 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus 12 || be summarily dismissed without prejudice to re-filing as a § 1983 civil rights action. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 15 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 16 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 17 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 18 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Petitioner 19 | is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 20 | District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 21 | DATED: October 8, 2025 22 ter — [U, 4 23 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28