Damous Nettles v. Randy Grounds
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13573
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Damous Nettles, serving a life sentence with parole eligibility, was found unsuitable for parole in 2009 after a panel considered his offense, criminal history, mental-health report, attitude, and numerous prison rules-violation reports (including a 2008 finding for threatening a corrections officer).
- Nettles sought state habeas relief to expunge the 2008 rules violation and restore 30 days of custody credits; state courts summarily denied relief for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Nettles then filed a federal habeas petition seeking expungement and credit restoration; the state moved to dismiss for lack of habeas jurisdiction, arguing the disciplinary result did not necessarily affect the duration of confinement.
- The district court dismissed, holding Nettles could not show expungement would likely accelerate parole eligibility; Nettles appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit majority held that claims by state prisoners that do not lie in the “core of habeas corpus” must be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (and are not cognizable in habeas), and remanded with instructions to allow conversion to § 1983 only after notice and informed consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nettles’ challenge to the 2008 disciplinary proceeding is cognizable in federal habeas | Nettles: expungement/restoration could affect parole scheduling and future parole decisions, thus affecting duration | State: the disciplinary decision does not necessarily affect fact or duration of confinement, so habeas lacks jurisdiction | Held: Not habeas; claim is outside the "core of habeas" because success would not necessarily shorten confinement; must be brought, if at all, under § 1983 |
| Whether habeas is the exclusive remedy for state-prisoner claims outside habeas core | Nettles: (implicitly) habeas available for procedural/parole-related challenges that could affect confinement | State: (implicitly) habeas jurisdiction is limited to claims that necessarily affect duration | Held: Ninth Circuit adopts rule that habeas is exclusive only for core claims; § 1983 is exclusive vehicle for other prison-life claims, overruling circuit decisions to the contrary |
| Whether a district court may convert a habeas petition into a § 1983 action sua sponte | Nettles: requested habeas; conversion could preserve a remedy | State: conversion may be inappropriate due to differing defendants, fees, and PLRA constraints | Held: Court may recharacterize a habeas petition as a § 1983 claim but must first notify and obtain the prisoner's informed consent (per Castro principles) |
| Role of congressional schemes (AEDPA/PLRA) and Supreme Court precedent in delimiting habeas vs § 1983 | Nettles: procedural remedies and exhaustion should not bar habeas when relief could affect parole | State/majority: PLRA and AEDPA indicate Congress intended distinct, non-overlapping channels; Supreme Court dicta (Dotson, Skinner) point to limiting habeas to its core | Held: Majority relies on Supreme Court statements and statutory scheme to confine habeas to core claims and channel other claims to § 1983 |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas is exclusive remedy for claims challenging fact or duration of confinement)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (distinguishes claims seeking restoration of good-time credits from claims challenging procedures)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 actions that would necessarily imply invalidity of conviction or confinement are barred absent prior invalidation)
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (disciplinary-procedure challenges that imply invalidity of punishment fall within habeas)
- Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (clarifies Heck’s scope for disciplinary challenges that do not necessarily affect duration)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (§ 1983 appropriate when success would only make prisoner eligible for parole review, not necessarily shorten confinement)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011) (reinforces that claims not in core of habeas may be pursued, if at all, under § 1983; supports limiting habeas to its core)