(HC) Smith v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County, 2:18-cv-00009

Petitioner Ricky Paul Smith, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a habeas petition in the Eastern District of California challenging an "imposed enhancement" to his Contra Costa County conviction (Case No. 05-160078-2) and attached portions of a Marsden transcript and multiple prison administrative appeals.
The court’s records show Smith previously filed a habeas petition in the Northern District of California (Smith v. DVI, 2:17-cv-2239 DB P) that also challenged the same Contra Costa conviction; that earlier filing was later amended to challenge only the conviction.
The instant petition is duplicative of the Northern District filing; the court concluded federal challenges to the same conviction must be pursued in one petition.
The Contra Costa criminal appeal (People v. Smith, Case No. A149320) remained pending on the California appellate docket, so the district court concluded it must abstain under Younger v. Harris from addressing the habeas petition now.
Petitioner appended unrelated administrative grievances about prison conditions; the magistrate declined to convert the habeas petition into a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the petition did not name proper defendants, did not seek appropriate relief, and conversion carries different procedural and fee consequences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition is duplicative of an earlier-filed habeas	Smith contends this petition raises a challenge to the same enhancement/conviction	Respondent points to earlier Northern District filing challenging the same conviction	Petition is duplicative and must be dismissed; all federal claims to the conviction must be pursued in one petition
Whether venue is proper in Eastern District	Smith filed in Eastern District (petition physically here)	The proper venue for challenges to the Contra Costa conviction is the Northern District	Petition must be filed in the Northern District for conviction challenges
Whether court should decide habeas while state appeal pending	Smith seeks relief now to remove enhancement	Respondent/record shows state appeal is pending; federal intervention would interfere with ongoing state proceedings	Court must abstain under Younger because state appeal is pending; habeas is premature
Whether to convert the habeas to a § 1983 civil-rights action	Smith appended prison-condition grievances; conversion could allow civil claims to proceed	Court notes petition fails to name proper defendants, seeks relief unavailable in § 1983, and conversion has fee/IFP consequences	Court declines to convert; advises petitioner may file a separate § 1983 action if appropriate

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (distinguishes habeas challenges to confinement from § 1983 challenges to conditions of confinement)
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2003) (same principle: habeas for duration, § 1983 for conditions)
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts must abstain to avoid interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings)
Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (standards and warning requirements for converting a habeas petition into a § 1983 complaint)
Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2005) (conversion guidance quoted in Nettles)
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (procedural note on objections to magistrate recommendations and appeal waiver)
Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (permitting judicial notice of facts readily verifiable on official websites)
MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500 (9th Cir. 1986) (courts may take judicial notice of court records)
White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2010) (taking judicial notice of a state court docket appropriate)