Jester v. D.O.J.

Background

Daniel G. Jester, who was incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison and represented himself, filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law governing certain petitions challenging state custody. The court previously dismissed his original petition with leave to amend because it was unclear what he challenged, what relief he requested, and whether the case belonged in a custody challenge or a civil-rights action.

Jester then filed a first amended petition and a second amended petition. Both complained about overcrowding at San Quentin and requested injunctive relief, meaning court orders intended to address the overcrowding.

Analysis

The court held that it lacked habeas jurisdiction over these claims. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, it explained that a prisoner’s claim falls outside the core of habeas corpus when success would not necessarily lead to immediate or speedier release from custody. Because Jester’s overcrowding claims did not seek relief that would necessarily affect the timing of his release, the court stated that any such claims would have to be pursued, if at all, in a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The court considered whether to construe, or convert, Jester’s petition into a civil-rights complaint. It declined to do so. The court noted that the filing fee for a civil-rights case differs from the fee for a habeas petition, that prisoners proceeding without prepayment of the fee may have deductions taken from their trust accounts, and that certain civil-rights dismissals can count as strikes under federal law. The court therefore did not assume that Jester wanted the conversion.

The court also found that the petition was not suitable for conversion because it did not name a proper defendant. According to the court, Jester sued San Quentin and apparently unrelated federal officials but did not identify an individual with authority over San Quentin’s housing arrangements.

Disposition

The court dismissed the habeas action without prejudice to Jester filing a new civil-rights action asserting his overcrowding claim. Judge Edward M. Chen entered the order on April 14, 2023.