Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00143/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00143-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTIAN WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

HECTOR A. RIOS,

Respondent.

 /

1:10-cv-00143-AWI-DLB (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING AMENDED PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 12]

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 for writ of habeas corpus on February 3, 2010. (Court

Doc. 1.) On March 3, 2010, the undersigned issued a Findings and Recommendation to dismiss

the original petition for failure to state a cognizable claim. On April 14, 2010, Petitioner filed a

motion to amend the petition. (Court Doc. 9.) On April 27, 2010, the Court vacated the Findings

and Recommendation issued March 3, 2010, and granted Petitioner’s motion to amend the

petition. (Court Doc. 11.) Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s amended petition filed

on May 17, 2010. (Court Doc. 12.) For the reasons explained infra, the amended petition suffers

the same defect as the original petition and must be dismissed.

DISCUSSION

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

1

Case 1:10-cv-00143-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/21/10 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

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 the amended petition, Petitioner challenges only his placement and retention in the

Security Housing Unit for a prior disciplinary action. Petitioner challenge does not challenge the

fact or duration of his confinement; rather, he challenges the conditions of his confinement. A

civil rights complaint, not a habeas corpus petition, is the proper mechanism for a prisoner

challenging the conditions of his confinement. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to

relief under § 2241, and the instant petition should be dismissed. 

 RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Amended Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED.

This Findings and Recommendation 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 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 Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served 

2

Case 1:10-cv-00143-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/21/10 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

and filed within fourteen (14) days 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: May 20, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-00143-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/21/10 Page 3 of 3