Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00314/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00314-0/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

THOMAS LEVOYES DAVIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

H. A. RIOS, JR., )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:10-CV-00314 GSA HC 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

[Docs. #3,8]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SEND FORMS

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have voluntarily consented to exercise of Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

DISCUSSION

On February 23, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. In his petition, Petitioner requests a transfer to another facility claiming his life is in danger as

a result of being placed in protective custody and being forced to room with a dangerous cellmate.

He also claims that prison staff have made threats against his life.

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.

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:10-cv-00314-GSA Document 9 Filed 03/18/10 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

§ 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 conditions of confinement by state prisoners

th

should be presented in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil 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. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED;

2) The outstanding motions are DENIED as moot;

3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case;

4) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner the standard form for claims pursuant

to Bivens, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and

5) A certificate of appealability is not required in this case. Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm'n,

114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir.1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 17, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:10-cv-00314-GSA Document 9 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 2