Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01353/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01353-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAGI MUKATIN,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

1: 07 CV 01353 AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 6]

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. Pending before the court is Respondent’s motion to

dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner claims that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)

violated the Foreign Prisoner Transfer Treaty Program when it failed to transfer him to Israel. 

Petitioner’s claims do not involve his underlying conviction or the duration of his confinement. 

Case 1:07-cv-01353-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 07/14/08 Page 1 of 5
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

Petitioner admittedly has not presented his claims to the California Supreme Court.

LEGAL STANDARD

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody pursuant

to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of

the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct.

1495, 1504 fn.7 (2000). On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after

its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S.

1008, 118 S.Ct. 586 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9 Cir. 1997) (quoting Drinkard

th

v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769 (5 Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1107, 117 S.Ct. 1114 (1997), th

overruled on other grounds by Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059 (1997) (holding

AEDPA only applicable to cases filed after statute's enactment). The instant petition was filed after

the enactment of the AEDPA, thus it is governed by its provisions. 

The AEDPA altered the standard of review that a federal habeas court must apply with

respect to a state prisoner's claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court. Williams v.

Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1518-23 (2000). Under the AEDPA, an application for habeas corpus will

not be granted unless the adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

Supreme Court of the United States;” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court proceeding.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173 (2003) (disapproving of the Ninth

Circuit’s approach in Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143 (9 Cir. 2000)); Williams v. Taylor, 120 th

S.Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000). “A federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court

concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly

established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Lockyer, at 1174 (citations omitted). “Rather,

that application must be objectively unreasonable.” Id. (citations omitted). 

DISCUSSION

Petitioner raises three claims: 1) CDCR violated his due process rights by failing to process

Case 1:07-cv-01353-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 07/14/08 Page 2 of 5
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

his application for transfer to Israel under the Foreign Prisoner Transfer Treaty Program; 2) CDCR’s

failure to process the application violated his right to access to the court; 3) the failure of CDCR to

transfer him to Israel under the treaty between Israel and the United States violated the Foreign

Prisoner Transfer Treaty Program. Respondent moves to dismiss this petition on the grounds that

the petition does not state a ground for federal habeas corpus relief and that Petitioner has failed to

exhaust state judicial remedies. Petitioner has not responded to the motion to dismiss. Because the

court finds Respondent’s first argument to be meritorious, it finds it unnecessary to address the

second.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a

petition if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 5

of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases state that “an alleged failure to exhaust state remedies may be

raised by the attorney general, thus avoiding the necessity of a formal answer as to that ground.” The

Ninth Circuit has referred to a respondent’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the Petitioner failed

to exhaust state remedies as a request for the court to dismiss under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §

2254 Cases. See, e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (1991); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d

599, 602-03 (9 Cir. 1989); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12 (E.D. Cal. 1982). th

Based on the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and case law, the court will review respondent’s

motion to dismiss pursuant to its authority under Rule 4.

Respondent moves to dismiss this petition on the ground that it does not state grounds for

federal habeas corpus relief. This claims appears to have merit.

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). “According to

traditional interpretation, the writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon the legality or duration

of confinement.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9 Cir. 1979) citing, Preiser v. Rodriguez, th

411 U.S. 475, 484-86 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases. Petitioner’s allegations, however, do not make such attacks. Petitioner does not

challenge the length his confinement or his underlying conviction; he only alleges that CDCR

Case 1:07-cv-01353-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 07/14/08 Page 3 of 5
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

 Petitioner’s claims challenge the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that 1

confinement. Challenges to the conditions of confinement are more appropriately raised in civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9 Cir. 1991); see generally th

Avalos v. Nielson, 2006 WL 2924767.

violated his rights to due process and access to the courts, and violated the Foreign Prisoner Transfer

Treaty Program. Even if Petitioner were to prevail on his claims, he would only obtain a transfer to

Israel to serve out the remainder of his sentence. He would not obtain immediate release from

custody or a shorter sentence. Therefore, as Respondent argues, there is no connection between

Petitioner’s claims and the length or duration of his confinement. The court must thus conclude that

Petitioner’s claims are not properly brought in a habeas corpus action and that this petition should be

dismissed.1

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows:

1) that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED;

2) that this petition be dismissed for failure to state a claim;

3) that the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case.

These Findings and Recommendation are 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 Recommendation.” 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).

 

Case 1:07-cv-01353-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 07/14/08 Page 4 of 5
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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01353-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 07/14/08 Page 5 of 5