Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01560/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01560-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON MEIDINGER,

Petitioner,

v.

NEIL H. ADLER,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01560-AWI-DLB (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

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 October 25, 2007. (Court

Doc. 1.) Petitioner contends that he is being denied proper and adequate medical treatment. 

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

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 (9 Cir. 1991) (challenges to th

conditions of confinement by state prisoners should be presented in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil

Case 1:07-cv-01560-AWI-DLB Document 5 Filed 11/14/07 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

rights action rather than a habeas corpus petition). 

In this case, Petitioner’s complaints involve the conditions of his confinement, not the

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

this petition must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do

so by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas

corpus relief. The Court further RECOMMENDS that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to send

Petitioner the standard form for claims pursuant to Bivens, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 twenty (20) 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.” Replies to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) court 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: November 13, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01560-AWI-DLB Document 5 Filed 11/14/07 Page 2 of 2