Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00923/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00923-0/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

WILLIAM TOWNSEND,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-0923 MCE DAD P

vs.

D. K. SISTO, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In his habeas petition, petitioner challenges the collection of restitution funds by

the Trust Account Office at California State Prison - Solano. Specifically, petitioner contends

that “[t]he California State Prison and California Department Trust Account Office is violating

petitioner’s due process rights by the department’s increase policy of 55%, deduction of his

funds.” (Petition at 3.) 

When a prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his custody and a determination

of his action may result in plaintiff's entitlement to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a

Case 2:08-cv-00923-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 06/04/08 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

2

writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907

F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990). Here, petitioner is not challenging his conviction but rather is

challenging the manner in which restitution is being deducted from his prison trust account

pursuant to California Department of Corrections’ regulations or policy. See Ramirez v. Galaza,

334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper,

where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s

sentence.”), cert. denied 541 U.S. 1063 (2004). This court lacks habeas jurisdiction and

petitioner’s challenge to the manner in which restitution is being deducted from his trust account

is properly raised through a civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See

Brasure v. Ayers, No. C 06-5823 JF (PR), 2007 WL 518990 *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2007)

(dismissing habeas action because petitioner’s claim concerning the collection of his restitution

order was appropriately addressed in a civil rights action). 

The court is required to examine a petition for federal habeas corpus relief before

requiring a response to it. See Rules 3 & 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. “If it plainly appears

from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the

judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal . . . .” Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254

Cases. Rule 4 “‘explicitly allows a district court to dismiss summarily the petition on the merits

when no claim for relief is stated.’” O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990)

(quoting Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 1983)). The court will recommend

that this action be summarily dismissed since petitioner does not challenge his conviction or the

execution of his sentence based on a violation of federal law or the U.S. Constitution. 

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. In light of these findings and

recommendations, the request will be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s May 1, 2008 request

for appointment of counsel is denied.

/////

Case 2:08-cv-00923-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 06/04/08 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

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be summarily dismissed

because it plainly appears from the face of the petition that petitioner is not entitled to relief

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

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

 DATED: June 4, 2008.

DAD:kc/dk

town0923.110

Case 2:08-cv-00923-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 06/04/08 Page 3 of 3