Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01379/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01379-2/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN E. RANSOM, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

A. K. SCRIBNER, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-1379 AWI LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #7]

ORDER DISMISSING GROUND FOR

RELIEF FROM PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On February 15, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Ground Two of the petition be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable federal

claim. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any

objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On February 23, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

Case 1:05-cv-01379-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 03/22/06 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

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

novo review of the case. In his objections, Petitioner contends that Ground Two does raise a

cognizable federal claim, because he is being housed in such a manner as to deny him the ability to

earn good time and work time credits against his sentence. Petitioner arguments are not persuasive.

Petitioner states in Ground One that he is currently being housed in the Secured Housing Unit

(“SHU”). Because of this placement, he states he is unable to earn good time and work time credits.

This claim may be a valid claim because it affects the duration of his sentence. Although Ground

Two suffers from a lack of clarity, it appears that Petitioner challenges a future action by the

California Department of Corrections (“CDC”). Petitioner states he has been presented with two

options by the CDC: 1) Return to placement in general population; or 2) Be placed in the Sensitive

Needs Yard (“SNY”). As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, this claim is not cognizable in a habeas

action because it challenges the manner and conditions of Petitioner’s confinement. To the extent

Petitioner claims he cannot earn good time credits, the claim is not ripe for review. Petitioner has 

been presented only with an option. It is possible that Petitioner may be subjected to a denial of the

ability to earn credits due to his choice, but this is a future possibility. In addition, one of these

options, general population, would allow Petitioner to earn credits against his sentence. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the objections, the Court

concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and

proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendations based on the

points raised in the objections.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued February 15, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Ground Two of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and

3. The matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01379-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2