Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01797/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01797-1/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

AMBROSIO VILLAGRANA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ADAMS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-01797-OWW-TAG HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS 

ORDER TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN

TWENTY DAYS

(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 December 11, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

(Doc. 1). In that petition, Petitioner alleges that Respondent has refused Petitioner’s requests to

be placed on “inactive” status regarding his prison gang association activities and that

Respondent has used an improper “laundry list” of names to determine whether an inmate should

be classified as an “associate” of a particular prison gang. (Id.). 

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.

Case 1:06-cv-01797-OWW -JLT Document 8 Filed 12/06/07 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

2

§ 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, 141-142 (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 Respondent has, through the use of a “laundry list”

of names, improperly classified him as an active gang “associate” and, moreover, has refused his

requests to re-classify him as “inactive.” As a result of Respondent’s actions, Petitioner has not

been placed in a less restrictive housing unit. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Petitioner is thus challenging the

conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Therefore, Petitioner

is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and the 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.

RECOMMENDATIONS

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; and,

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, 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 twenty (20) 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 Recommendations.” The District Judge 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-01797-OWW -JLT Document 8 Filed 12/06/07 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

3

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01797-OWW -JLT Document 8 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 3