Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00895/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00895-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on March 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California, and transferred to this Court on May 14, 2014. (Docs. 1, 14). Before 

the Court could conduct a preliminary review of the petition, Petitioner, on June 18, 2014, filed a first 

amended petition. (Doc. 24). On July 2, 2014, after conducting a preliminary review of the first 

amended petition, the Court ordered Petitioner to file a second amended petition because the first 

amended petition contained no discernible claims that could possibly relate to habeas relief. (Doc. 

25). On July 24, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant second amended petition, which contains a general

complaint about a wide variety of prison conditions that Petitioner feels are unjust. (Doc. 26). For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court will recommend that the second amended petition be DISMISSED

GARY FRANCIS FISHER,

 Petitioner,

v.

RICK BARRIOS, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00895-AWI-JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR 

LACK OF JURISDICTION (Doc. 26)

ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED 

WITHIN 21 DAYS

Case 1:14-cv-00895-AWI-JLT Document 29 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review of 

each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from 

the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only 

grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation of 

the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a 

prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 

(9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973); Ramirez v. 

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, 

where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s 

sentence”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

The Ninth Circuit has also held that “[h]abeas corpus jurisdiction also exists when a petitioner 

seeks expungement of a disciplinary finding from his record if expungement is likely to accelerate the 

prisoner’s eligibility for parole.” Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989); see also 

Docken v. Chase, 393 F. 3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2004)(“[W]e understand Bostic’s use of the term 

‘likely’ to identify claims with a sufficient nexus to the length of imprisonment so as to implicate, but 

not fall squarely within, the ‘core’ challenges identified by the Preiser Court.”)

In contrast to a habeas corpus challenge to the length or duration of confinement, a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of 

confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 

931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

In this case, Petitioner raises complaints about various prison conditions, including the failure 

to forward Petitioner’s mail when he was transferred from one prison to another and loss of 

Petitioner’s mail, the use of the prison disciplinary process by prison staff to retaliate against 

Petitioner, an attempted murder purported perpetrated at some unspecified time against Petitioner, 

discrimination by prison staff, lack of available resources in the prison law library, and, apparently, 

Case 1:14-cv-00895-AWI-JLT Document 29 Filed 08/27/14 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

requiring prisoners to drink water contaminated with arsenic. (Doc. 26, pp. 2-9). As relief, Petitioner 

requests the following: Appointment of counsel and the opportunity to speak to Sheriffs “Wetter” and 

“Joe Evans”. (Doc. 26, p. 11). Petitioner also demands, as compensation, $999,999,999,999,999,999 

in damages. (Id.). 

Petitioner is thus challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that 

confinement. No relief requested by Petitioner in his petition would affect the fact or duration of 

Petitioner’s sentence. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition 

should be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a 

civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the second amended petition be 

DISMISSED for Petitioner’s failure to state any cognizable federal habeas claims.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21

days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a 

copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within 10 days after 

service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00895-AWI-JLT Document 29 Filed 08/27/14 Page 3 of 3