Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00549/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00549-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

LEONARD D. JENNINGS,

Petitioner,

v.

PAUL M. SHULTZ, et. al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-0549 OWW DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PETITIONER BLANK COMPLAINT

FORM

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on April 25, 2005, and paid the filing fee on June 7,

2005. Petitioner raises the following grounds for relief: 1) illegal detention in SHU without due

process of law; 2) interference with mail; 3) inadequate medical treatment; and 4) the

administrative remedy process is inadequate. 

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 in the

district court." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see, also, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908

F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990).

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Writ of habeas corpus relief is available if a federal

Case 1:05-cv-00549-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 06/10/05 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

prisoner can show he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). However, where a Petitioner seeks to challenge the

conditions of his confinement, his claims are cognizable in a civil rights action rather than a

habeas corpus action. In the federal context, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), provides Petitioners with a remedy for violation of

civil rights by federal actors. C.f., Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (challenges to

conditions of confinement by state prisoners should be presented in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil

rights action rather than a habeas corpus petition). 

In this case, Petitioner’s assertions that his federal constitutional rights are being violated 

concerns the conditions of Petitioner’s confinement and is more appropriately heard in a civil

rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

403 U.S. 388 (1971). Accordingly, the instant action should be dismissed and Petitioner

directed to submit a Civil Rights complaint for federal prisoners challenging the conditions of

their confinement. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED and that Petitioner be instructed to submit a civil rights complaint for those

prisoners seeking to challenge the conditions of their confinement. 

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

Judge assigned to the 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 thirty (30) days after being served with a copy of this Report and

Recommendation, 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.” 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 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

Case 1:05-cv-00549-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 06/10/05 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

Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form for federal

prisoners seeking to challenge the conditions of their confinement and the

applicable Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00549-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 3