Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00026/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00026-0/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

 No order has been issued concerning petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in 1

forma pauperis.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

B.T. MOORE, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0026 LKK DAD P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF

CORRECTIONS, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This action was transferred to this court from the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of California. Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Petitioner filed 1

a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the decision by medical staff at CMF Vacaville

that he does not need a walking cane. However, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

appropriately filed by a prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his custody where a favorable

determination of the action may result in plaintiff's entitlement to an earlier release. See Preiser

v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990). Here, on the

other hand, petitioner is challenging the adequacy of the medical care he is receiving in prison

Case 2:06-cv-00026-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 05/10/06 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

and does not seek to collaterally attack his underlying criminal conviction. The proper

mechanism for raising a federal challenge to conditions of confinement, including claims of

inadequate medical care, is through a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). 

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)). Here, petitioner has filed a

habeas petition, but seeks relief that may only be pursued in a civil rights action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be summarily

dismissed.

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: May 9, 2006.

DAD:4

moore26.156

Case 2:06-cv-00026-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 2