Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01444/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01444-1/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

HENRY WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Director of California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-1444 OWW SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 4]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 21, 2006, in

the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The action was transferred

to this Court on October 2, 2006, and filed with this Court on October 17, 2006. (Court Doc. 1.) 

Petitioner filed an amended petition on November 6, 2006. (Court Doc. 4.) 

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 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

Case 1:06-cv-01444-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/13/06 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

27

28

2

"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 the instant case, Petitioner is challenging his classification based on his status as a gang

affiliate and cites a violation of several different Code of Federal Regulations. (Amended

Petition, at 7-9.) Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or

duration of that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and 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.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas

corpus relief. The Court further RECOMMENDS that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to send

Petitioner the standard form for claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

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 ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) 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

Case 1:06-cv-01444-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/13/06 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

27

28

3

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: December 12, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01444-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/13/06 Page 3 of 3