Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01276/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01276-2/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on August 29, 2016.1Following a 

preliminary review of the petition, the Court determined that Petitioner had failed to file a complete 

habeas petition. Therefore, on September 14, 2016, the Court issued an order directing Petitioner to 

submit a First Amended Petition. Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition on November 3, 2016, 

which is presently before the Court. The Court has screened the First Amended Petition and finds it 

too fails to state a federal claim for relief. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the amended petition and 

require Petitioner to file a Second Amended Petition.

I. PROCEDURAL GROUNDS FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled 

to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify 

the petitioner.

 

1

Petitioner consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) on September 12, 2016.

HOWARD YOUNG,

 Petitioner,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01276-JLT (HC)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

PETITION AND REQUIRING PETITIONER TO 

SUBMIT A SECOND AMENDED PETITION

[THIRTY DAY DEADLINE]

Case 1:16-cv-01276-JLT Document 9 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A petition for habeas corpus should not be 

dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were 

such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 

II. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

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. § 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, 141-42 (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 his first claim for relief, Petitioner alleges the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and his right to be free 

from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment when it denied him access to 

rehabilitation programs including vocational and trade apprenticeship opportunities. Petitioner also 

claims the CDCR wrongfully denied his request for out-of-state transfer to be closer to his family 

and/or San Quentin. In his second claim, Petitioner alleges he was wrongfully classified when the 

CDCR failed to take into consideration his previous C-file minimum custody camp eligibility.

With these claims, Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or 

duration of that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and these claims 

must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue them, he must do so by way of a civil rights 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

III. INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION

Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that the petition:

Case 1:16-cv-01276-JLT Document 9 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 4
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

...shall specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner and of 

which he has or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have knowledge and shall 

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.

Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner must also clearly state the relief sought in 

the petition. Id. Additionally, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 explains that “‘[N]otice’

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of 

constitutional error.’” Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4; see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 

75, n. 7, 97 S.Ct. 1621 (1977). 

In his third claim for relief, Petitioner alleges the CDCR violated his due process rights and his 

right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when it wrongfully calculated his EPRD release 

and/or parole hearing eligibility date. He claims the CDCR has wrongfully limited him to 66% instead 

of 50% good time.

Petitioner’s third claim does not comply with the requirements of Rule 2(c). The claim is 

completely conclusory and without any supporting facts. Petitioner fails to demonstrate how CDCR 

has wrongfully calculated his release date and/or parole eligibility date and in what way the Eighth and 

Fourteenth Amendments were violated. "Conclusory allegations which are not supported by a 

statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief." James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 29 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Petitioner has thus failed to meet these minimal pleading requirements. 

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the first amended petitio and Petitioner will be required to 

submit a second amended petition in which he clearly and succinctly sets forth all of his claims, 

together with supporting factual allegations, in order for this case to proceed.

IV. ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The first amended petition is DISMISSED;

2. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this Order to file a second 

amended petition that complies with this order;

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for 

petitioners filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Case 1:16-cv-01276-JLT Document 9 Filed 11/15/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in an Order of 

Dismissal pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01276-JLT Document 9 Filed 11/15/16 Page 4 of 4