(HC) Hardin v. Federal Court Fresno
1:14-cv-00248
E.D. Cal.Apr 25, 2014Background
- Petitioner Jeff Hardin, Jr., a state prisoner convicted of murder in Kern County (2014), filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition in the Eastern District of California.
- Hardin alleged misconduct by the Kern County Sheriff’s Department: negligence, a corrupt "Good Ole Boys" gang in government, and that a state-funded residence (“Griffin’s Gate”) enables gang activity.
- He requested the court to block the sheriff’s receipt of his retirement benefits, to shut down Griffin’s Gate, and to hire investigators to verify his claims.
- The magistrate judge reviewed the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and determined the claims did not challenge the legality of Hardin’s custody.
- The court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief (federal habeas is limited to attacks on custody) and noted federal courts cannot compel state officials to perform state duties.
- The petition was dismissed, Hardin’s motion for a private investigator was denied, the clerk was ordered to enter judgment, and the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognizability under § 2254 | Hardin contends sheriff misconduct and gang activity warrant federal relief | Respondent: Petition does not attack conviction or sentence; not a habeas claim | Dismissed for lack of cognizable federal habeas claim |
| Authority to order state officials | Hardin asks court to block sheriff's retirement and shut Griffin’s Gate | Federal court cannot compel state officials to perform state duties; Eleventh Amendment limits | Court lacks power to order such state actions; relief denied |
| Request for court-funded investigator | Hardin seeks appointment/hiring of private investigator to verify allegations | Moot because petition is not cognizable; no jurisdiction to grant investigatory relief | Motion denied |
| Certificate of appealability (COA) | Hardin may seek appeal of dismissal | Respondent: No substantial showing of denial of constitutional right | COA denied; reasonable jurists would not debate the dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas corpus is proper vehicle to challenge legality of custody)
- Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (federal courts may not order state officials to conform their conduct to state law)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for COA when constitutional claims are denied)
- Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rule 4 dismissal authority and procedure)
- Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13 (9th Cir. 1971) (leave to amend not required if no tenable claim can be pleaded)