Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02250/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02250-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES L. SANDERS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2250 FCD DAD P

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CDC, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a judgment of

conviction entered against him in the Solano County Superior Court. On December 3, 2007,

respondents filed an answer to the petition. On January 2, 2008, petitioner filed a traverse. 

Before the court is petitioner’s second request for an emergency federal injunction.

In his request, petitioner alleges that he experiences “impairment of brain

motoring function,” “abnormal central nervous system,” and “extreme fatigue” because his “AM

and PM meals are being secretly earmarked and contaminated.” Petitioner contends that

contaminated food will prevent him from preparing any future objections to the magistrate

judge’s recommendations, filing a notice of appeal, and commencing any new litigation. 

Petitioner also alleges that correctional officers have attempted to murder him through biological

Case 2:05-cv-02250-FCD-DAD Document 37 Filed 04/09/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2

warfare and asphyxiation and that they have sexually assaulted him and engaged in excessive

force against him. 

Petitioner is advised that this matter has been submitted for decision. As such,

petitioner is not required to submit anything further in this case at this time. In addition,

Correctional Officers Morgan, Hartman, Lucas, Bumbaca, Dean, Little, Stephens, and Gant, who

petitioner alleges are ganging up on him, are not parties to this habeas action. This court is

unable to issue any order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Finally, petitioner is

advised that habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to

challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484

(1973). In contrast, a civil rights action is the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to

challenge the conditions of his confinement. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574

(9th Cir. 1991). Petitioner’s claims concern conditions of his confinement and therefore should

be raised in a civil rights action if he wishes to pursue them. Accordingly, petitioner’s request

for an emergency federal injunction will be denied without prejudice to the filing of a civil rights

action.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s January

22, 2008 request for an emergency federal injunction is denied. 

DATED: April 9, 2008.

DAD:9

sand2250.49a(2)

Case 2:05-cv-02250-FCD-DAD Document 37 Filed 04/09/08 Page 2 of 2