Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01311/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01311-0/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN E. WEST, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES YATES, et al. )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-cv-01311-AWI-TAG HC 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 19, 2005, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of

habeas corpus in this Court. (Doc. 1).

Petitioner, who, at the time of filing of the petition, was incarcerated in Pleasant Valley

State Prison (“PVSP”), Coalinga, California, raises a single ground for relief in his petition, i.e.,

that the entire medical staff at PVSP has violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights by failing to

provide necessary medical care to Petitioner, including the prescribing of various drugs, the

referral of Petitioner to outside medical practitioners, and the denial of treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 3). 

Petitioner alleges that the medical staff at PVSP has acted in a malicious and negligent manner in

violation of what Petitioner alleges is a federal court’s order to correct its prior deficiencies. 

(Doc. 1, p. 4). Petitioner does not challenge either his conviction or sentence. Petitioner

specifically indicates that his claim for relief is not applicable to his superior court sentence. 

(Doc. 1, p. 3). 

Case 1:05-cv-01311-AWI-TAG Document 6 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 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

2

In the petition, Petitioner requests the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Also, on

November 14, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion seeking to permit the inclusion in this case of an

additional “plaintiff” on the grounds that the prospective plaintiff has suffered similar problems

as has Petitioner with the PVSP medical staff. (Doc. 5). 

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 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that 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 complains that the medical staff at PVSP has been negligent in

denying him necessary medical care. Petitioner seeks an order from this Court that would correct

what Petitioner describes as the “deplorable” medical conditions at PVSP. (Doc. 1, p. 4). 

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

confinement. Hence, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and therefore this petition

must 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.

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01311-AWI-TAG Document 6 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 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

3

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS:

1. That the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED because the

petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus relief;

2. That Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 1), be DENIED as MOOT;

3. That Petitioner’s motion to add an additional “plaintiff” to this action (Doc. 5), be

DENIED as MOOT: and,

4. That the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to send Petitioner the standard form for claims

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and

Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District

of California. Within thirty (30) 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 Report and Recommendation.” 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: November 23, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01311-AWI-TAG Document 6 Filed 11/23/05 Page 3 of 3