Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01811/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01811-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY L. SHIVERS, III,

Petitioner,

v.

ON HABEAS CORPUS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-1811 OWW DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Doc. 4]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 8, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. On

December 26, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for injunctive relief. (Court Doc. 4.) 

In his motion, Petitioner states that he is challenging his conditions of confinement and

seeking injunctive relief from the operation of the denial of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

Petitioner claims that prison officials denied his due process rights with respect to his

disciplinary hearing. Petitioner requests injunctive relief and monetary damages.

DISCUSSION

First, Petitioner is advised that monetary damages are not available to a Petitioner in a

habeas action. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 111 S.Ct. 1737, 1740 (1991) (recognizing

two primary categories of suits brought by prisoners--applications for habeas corpus relief

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2255 and actions for monetary or injunctive relief under 42

Case 1:06-cv-01811-OWW -DLB Document 6 Filed 01/23/07 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

U.S.C. § 1983"). 

Second, 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, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1833 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes

to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an

attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of

the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser, 411 U.S. at 484. 

Petitioner is advised that generally claims concerning the conditions of one’s confinement

are more properly raised in a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. 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, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1833 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. However, a civil rights action is the proper method for a

prisoner to challenge the conditions of his confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136,

141-42, 111 S.Ct. 1737, 1741-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499, 93 S.Ct. at 1841; Badea, 931

F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Petitioner’s requested relief will not effect immediate release from custody and is

therefore inappropriate. See McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131 (1934); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54

(1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (1968). Furthermore, petitioner seeks injunctive relief

against individuals who are not yet named as defendants to this action. The court us unable to

issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969).

Petitioner fails to establish he is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. To prevail on

such a request, the moving party must show either "(1) a likelihood of success on the merits and

the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits

and the balance of hardships tipping in [the moving party's] favor." Oakland Tribune, Inc. v.

Case 1:06-cv-01811-OWW -DLB Document 6 Filed 01/23/07 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

Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple

Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984); see also

Hartikka v. United States, 754 F.2d 1516, 1518 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent

two points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. 

Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. "Under either formulation of the test, plaintiff must

demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury." Id. In the absence of a

significant showing of irreparability, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success

on the merits. Id. Petitioner has failed to meet this high standard for injunctive relief. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s motion for a

preliminary injunction be DENIED.

This Findings and Recommendations is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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, 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.” 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 District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 22, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01811-OWW -DLB Document 6 Filed 01/23/07 Page 3 of 3