Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00130/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00130-1/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 The petition is partly incoherent and illegible. 

1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MICHAEL BALBO,

Petitioner,

v.

KEN CLARK, et.al.,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00130 AWI DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PETITIONER BLANK §1983

COMPLAINT FORM

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 11, 2008, in the

United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The action was transferred to

this Court by order issued January 18, 2008. (Court Doc. 1.) 

Petitioner is currently residing in the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation at Corcoran State Prison, California. As far as the Court can ascertain from the

petition , Petitioner contends that he has Cancer and is in imminent danger of dying, he has not 1

been provided adequate medical treatment, the prison is overcrowded by a large number of

inmates, he has no access to the law library, courts, or legal materials, he has been placed in

solitary confinement and his medical devices have been confiscated, and prison officials have

Case 1:08-cv-00130-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/26/08 Page 1 of 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 The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Petitioner currently has another action pending in this 2

Court, see 1:07-cv-01715 LJO GSA HC, in which he makes similar allegations. 

2

engaged in retaliation against him. (See Petition, in general.) 2

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 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 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that 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, despite the fact that Petitioner seeks release as part of his claim for relief,

Petitioner is challenging only 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 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. 

This Findings and Recommendation is 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

Case 1:08-cv-00130-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 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

3

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).

ORDER

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Petitioner a blank civil rights complaint form

for prisoners seeking relief 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 25, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00130-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/26/08 Page 3 of 3