Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00794/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00794-7/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENNETH A. SHARONOFF, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WARDEN, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-00794-TLN-AC-P 

ORDER 

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner recently filed two documents with the court 

entitled “Notice,” ECF No. 49, and “Motion: Extension of Time,”1 ECF No. 50. Both documents 

allege that plaintiff is currently being mistreated by a physician at the Correctional Treatment 

Center (CTC) at Pleasant Valley State Prison. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that his current 

physician has denied him adequate pain medication, access to the law library, and access to his 

legal mail. He also alleges that his requests to be transferred to the care of another doctor or to 

the general custody of the CDCR have been denied. 

 Petitioner’s request for relief regarding the treatment he is receiving at CTC essentially 

presents a challenge to the conditions of petitioner’s confinement, which may not be addressed in 

 

1

 The court notes that this document appears to be a request for a court order rather than a request 

for an extension of time. Petitioner currently faces no deadlines that might be extended. 

Case 2:13-cv-00794-TLN-AC Document 51 Filed 04/08/15 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 

27 

28 

2

this habeas action. Habeas jurisdiction exists only for petitioners challenging the legality or 

duration of their incarceration, not the conditions of confinement. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 

850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner is advised that the proper mechanism for raising a federal 

challenge to conditions of confinement is through a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). 

 To the extent that petitioner requests a court order transferring him out of CTC and back 

into the general population of Pleasant Valley State Prison, see ECF No. 50, petitioner’s request 

is still not cognizable in this habeas action because it does not impact the legality or duration of 

his confinement. See Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 859 (“habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 

action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the 

prisoner’s sentence”); see also Wilson v. Wrigley, 2007 WL 1378024 at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 10, 

2007) (petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief under § 2241 because his request to be 

transferred to another institution did not impact the duration of his confinement). 

 Should petitioner wish to pursue these claims further, he must first file an administrative 

grievance with the prison and complete the prison grievance process in order to exhaust his 

administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a); 

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) (the PLRA requires that administrative 

remedies be exhausted prior to filing suit). Petitioner may then seek relief in federal court by 

filing a § 1983 civil rights complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s request for a court order (ECF No. 50) is denied; and 

2. The clerk of the court is directed to send petitioner a § 1983 civil rights complaint 

form and the accompanying directions. 

DATED: April 8, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-00794-TLN-AC Document 51 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 2