Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01755/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01755-0/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

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which was filed on November 19, 2015.

.

Petitioner alleges that 

he is in custody of Fresno County Jail, serving a sentence of ninety days, because of an October 6, 

2015 conviction for undisclosed crimes in the Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. 1, p. 1). 

However, Petitioner does not challenge either his conviction or sentence. Instead, as grounds for 

relief, Petitioner alleges that the Fresno County Jail has failed to provide needed medical services, i.e., 

an MRI or other test to determine if Petitioner has spinal damage. (Doc. 1, p. 4). 

I. DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review of 

each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from 

the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

CARMELO SOTO,

 Petitioner,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01755-JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF HABEAS 

JURISDICTION (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED 

WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

ORDERING DIRECTING CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

Case 1:15-cv-01755-JLT Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). 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). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a 

prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 

(9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973); Ramirez v. 

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, 

where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s 

sentence”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

The Ninth Circuit has also held that “[h]abeas corpus jurisdiction also exists when a petitioner 

seeks expungement of a disciplinary finding from his record if expungement is likely to accelerate the 

prisoner’s eligibility for parole.” Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989); see also 

Docken v. Chase, 393 F. 3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2004)(“[W]e understand Bostic’s use of the term 

‘likely’ to identify claims with a sufficient nexus to the length of imprisonment so as to implicate, but 

not fall squarely within, the ‘core’ challenges identified by the Preiser Court.”)

In contrast to a habeas corpus challenge to the length or duration of confinement, a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of 

confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 

931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

In this case, as mentioned, Petitioner alleges that because of a prior fall from a truck, he suffers 

from pain and lack of mobility in his back. Petitioner requests an MRI and other medical treatment for 

his injuries. Petitioner is thus challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of 

that confinement. No relief requested by Petitioner in his petition would affect the fact or duration of 

Petitioner’s sentence. Therefore, 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to assign a United States District 

Judge to this case.

Case 1:15-cv-01755-JLT Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 3
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

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus petition be 

DISMISSED for Petitioner’s failure to state any cognizable federal habeas claims.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21

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 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: December 2, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01755-JLT Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 3