Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00952/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00952-0/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

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 is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The instant petition was filed on June 24, 2015. (Doc. 1). Petitioner alleges that he is in 

custody of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, serving a sentence of 28-years-tolife for possession of a controlled substance. (Doc. 1, p. 6). However, Petitioner does not challenge 

either his conviction or sentence. Instead, Petitioner challenges the conditions of his confinement, 

specifically lack of proper medical care. 

 DISCUSSION

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." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

JEFFREY LAMONT TAYLOR,

 Petitioner,

v.

VILLIDOS, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00952-JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF HABEAS 

JURISDICTION (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED 

WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

ORDERING DIRECTING CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

Case 1:15-cv-00952-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 07/02/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). 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 (1973); Ramirez v. 

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, 

where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s 

sentence”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

The Ninth Circuit has also held that “[h]abeas corpus jurisdiction also exists when a petitioner 

seeks expungement of a disciplinary finding from his record if expungement is likely to accelerate the

prisoner’s eligibility for parole.” Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989); see also 

Docken v. Chase, 393 F. 3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2004)(“[W]e understand Bostic’s use of the term 

‘likely’ to identify claims with a sufficient nexus to the length of imprisonment so as to implicate, but 

not fall squarely within, the ‘core’ challenges identified by the Preiser Court.”)

In contrast to a habeas corpus challenge to the length or duration of confinement, a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of 

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 this case, as mentioned, Petitioner alleges that, from May 1, 2014 through May 27, 2014, he 

was denied access to a “TYY/TDD machine” that was necessary for his hearing impairment. (Doc. 1, 

p. 4). Several times in the petition, Petitioner indicates that he is challenging “prison conditions,” (Doc. 

1, pp. 1; 2; 3; 6), and that his conviction and sentence are “not at issue.” (Doc. 1, pp. 1; 2; 3; 5; 6). 

Specifically, Petitioner contends that he suffers from various physical and medical disabilities, 

including hearing loss, and that he was denied proper medical care and treatment as a result of 

“discrimination, retaliation... [and] race.” (Doc. 1, p. 1). Petitioner is thus challenging the conditions 

of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. No relief requested by Petitioner in his 

petition would affect the fact or duration of Petitioner’s sentence. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled 

to habeas corpus relief, and this petition must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his 

Case 1:15-cv-00952-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 07/02/15 Page 2 of 3
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

claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to assign a United States District 

Judge to this case.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus petition be 

DISMISSED for Petitioner’s failure to state any cognizable federal habeas claims.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21 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 

Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within 10 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 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00952-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 07/02/15 Page 3 of 3