Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01965/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01965-0/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NIGEL O’NEAL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1965 GEB GGH P

vs.

NIGEL MERRITT, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner alleges that he was wrongfully fired from his

job.

The purpose of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is to challenge the validity of a

conviction or sentence. The purpose of a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is to

challenge conditions of confinement. Petitioner does not appear to challenge the legality of his

sentence or conviction, including a prison disciplinary conviction. Petitioner does not allege, for

example, that he was found guilty of a rules violation and assessed credits. Rather, petitioner’s

claims implicate the conditions of his confinement. 

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01965-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 11/07/06 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

2

Because petitioner’s claims are not properly brought in a petition for writ of

habeas corpus, the court recommends that this action be dismissed. Rule 4, Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a

writ of habeas corpus be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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).

DATED: 11/7/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

on1965.ord

Case 2:06-cv-01965-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 2