Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02138/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02138-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER LUCIANNO CURBELLO

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-05-2138 FCD CMK P

vs.

MARTY C. AMDERSON, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, together with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner is in federal custody in Minnesota but subject to a detainer from El

Dorado County, California, therefore, jurisdiction is proper in this court. See Braden v. 30th

Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 499 n. 15 (1973) (stating that where prisoner is incarcerated

in one state but subject to a detainer issued by another state, federal courts in more than one state

may have personal jurisdiction over the action). Petitioner alleges that the El Dorado County

Case 2:05-cv-02138-FCD-CMK Document 5 Filed 02/23/06 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

Petitioner states he “may be able to qualify for a half-way house if the detainer were 1

dropped and resolved. Release is currently scheduled to be on or about December 21st, 2005. This

date is if no half-way house time is granted and all good time credits are given and should include

the 54 days per year time credit that should be received although it appears that the Bureau of

Prisons only issues an average of 47 thereby extending release by fourteen (14) days.” (Pet.’s Mem.

in Support of § 2241 at 8-9.)

2

detainer has served to deny his access to the half-way house program offered under § 3621 and

§3624, limited his participation in certain programs and employment opportunities, resulted in

him being classified as a low security prisoner instead of a minimum security prisoner. He does

not allege that he lost any good time credits or that the denial access to the half-way house

program increased his federal confinement. The gravemen of petitioner’s writ is that his right to 1

a speedy disposition of the El Dorado County detainer warrants pursuant to the Interstate

Agreement on Detainer Act was violated. He states that he is not attacking his federal

conviction rather, he is asking for relief from the detainer and the underlying state charges. 

Because petitioner does not allege that he lost good time credits or that his

conviction has been extended by the detainer warrant, his continued confinement does not

violate the federal constitution, a prerequisite for federal habeas corpus relief. See Estelle v.

McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). To the extent that petitioner is challenging the conditions

of his confinement, federal habeas relief is not available. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574

(9th Cir. 1991) (habeas petition is proper method to challenge legality or duration of

confinement, but civil rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of confinement). 

Accordingly, it is appropriate to dismiss this action without issuing an order to show cause. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 298-99 (1969). 

IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioners application for a writ of habeas corpus

be dismissed. 

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02138-FCD-CMK Document 5 Filed 02/23/06 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

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 22, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02138-FCD-CMK Document 5 Filed 02/23/06 Page 3 of 3