Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00674/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00674-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESLEY W. HUNTER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ANTHONY HEDGPETH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00674 AWI NEW (DLB) HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302.

On May 4, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court.

The petition raises four grounds for relief: 1) Petitioner alleges the California Department of

Corrections (“CDC”) did not follow policy when adjusting his placement score thereby causing him

to be housed in a more secure and volatile environment than warranted; 2) Petitioner claims he was

issued a SHU-term for “possession with the intent . . .” which is an act that is not listed on the SHUterm assessment chart and which resulted in a lengthening of his sentence, loss of job status, loss of

earned placement score points, and an increase in his custody status; 3) Petitioner alleges his

overnight family visits have been wrongly taken for life in violation of his constitutional rights; and

Case 1:07-cv-00674-AWI-GSA Document 7 Filed 08/20/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

4) Petitioner contends the CDC is arbitrarily using a rule/regulation which has been repealed thus

leaving Petitioner to become a victim of an ex post facto law that aggravated his offense and made it

greater than when it was committed.

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk

to notify the petitioner. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A petition for habeas corpus should not be

dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded

were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9 Cir. 1971). th

B. Failure to State Cognizable Federal Habeas Claim

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 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 raises four claims for relief; however, only two arguably present

cognizable federal habeas claims. In Ground One, Petitioner argues the CDC did not follow its own

Case 1:07-cv-00674-AWI-GSA Document 7 Filed 08/20/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

policy when adjusting his placement score. As a result, Petitioner claims he was moved to a more

secure and volatile environment than warranted. As to this, Petitioner is challenging the conditions

of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Thus, he is not entitled to habeas

corpus relief on this ground and it must be dismissed. 

In Ground Three, Petitioner claims his overnight family visits have been wrongly taken for

life. Again, this is a condition of Petitioner’s confinement and does not affect the fact or duration of

his confinement. Therefore, this claim must also be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue

these claims, he must do so by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Grounds One and Three be DISMISSED from

the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

This Findings 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 Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and

filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) 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 20, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00674-AWI-GSA Document 7 Filed 08/20/07 Page 3 of 3