Calderon v. Covello
- Lin
- 3:23-cv-06560
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Calderon v. Covello, Judge Lin dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice, granted fee-waiver status, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Juan Carlos Calderon’s habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice. He may file a separate civil-rights action, but the court did not convert this petition into one. The respondent received judgment in his favor, and Calderon’s request to proceed without paying the habeas filing fee was granted.
What happened
In Calderon v. Covello, Juan Carlos Calderon sought relief from state convictions through a habeas petition. Some allegations directly challenged those convictions, while the main allegations accused state and federal actors of handling his earlier habeas petitions in a biased and corrupt way.
The court said the conviction challenges were barred because they were part of a second or later habeas petition challenging the same convictions. It also said the allegations about handling earlier petitions did not belong in a habeas case and instead had to be brought as a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Judge Rita F. Lin dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning Calderon could file a separate civil-rights action if he wished. The court granted his request to proceed without paying the habeas filing fee, said a certificate of appealability would not issue, entered judgment for the respondent, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Calderon v. Covello · No. 3:23-cv-06560
- Lin
- May 3, 2024
Background
Juan Carlos Calderon filed a habeas petition seeking relief from state convictions. The petition included allegations directly challenging the legality of those convictions. The court referred to an earlier round of this dispute, No. 23-cv-05907 BLF (PR), in which a challenge to the convictions was dismissed as a second or later habeas petition.
The petition’s remaining allegations were its main focus. Calderon alleged that state and federal actors handled his earlier habeas petitions in a biased and corrupt manner.
Court’s analysis
The court determined that the direct challenges to the state convictions were barred because this was a second or later habeas petition challenging those convictions.
The court also concluded that the allegations about the handling of earlier habeas petitions were not proper claims in a habeas action. Habeas proceedings are used to challenge the legality or duration of confinement. The court said these other allegations instead had to be brought as a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court considered whether to treat the habeas petition as a civil-rights complaint. It explained that the filing fee for habeas petitions is five dollars, while the fee for a civil-rights case is $405, or $350 if the court grants pauper status. It further explained that the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act requires payment of the civil-rights filing fee through deductions from the prisoner’s trust account, even when pauper status is granted. A civil-rights case dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim can also count as a “strike,” unlike a habeas case. Because converting the petition could create these consequences, the court declined to do so.
Ruling
The case was DISMISSED without prejudice to Calderon filing a civil-rights action if he wished to do so. The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Calderon had not shown that reasonable judges could debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct.
The court GRANTED Calderon’s motion to proceed without paying the habeas filing fee. The clerk was directed to terminate the docket entry for that motion, enter judgment in favor of the respondent, and close the file.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.