Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00675/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00675-0/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN GARCIA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

GEORGE BAILEY CORRECTIONAL )

DEPARTMENT, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:10-cv-00675-JLT HC 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE FILE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PETITION BLANK FORM FOR

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §

1983

NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

REQUIRED

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 16, 2010, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas

corpus in this Court. (Doc. 1). On April 26, 2010, Petitioner filed his written consent to the

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes. (Doc. 3). 

Petitioner alleges that he is in custody of the Fresno County Jail as a result of a conviction

for possession of a controlled substance in the San Diego “Municipal Court.” (Doc. 1, p. 2). He

alleges that he was sentenced on July 3, 2009 to a term of six months and released on August 14,

2009. (Id.). However, Petitioner does not challenge either his conviction or sentence. Instead,

Petitioner complains that the George Bailey Correctional Institution (“George Bailey”) lost or

1

Case 1:10-cv-00675-JLT Document 4 Filed 04/29/10 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

threw away his personal property. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that he was transferred from

George Bailey, located in San Diego, to a facility located in Vista, California, for medical

treatment, that he was released from custody at the Vista facility, and that when he returned to

George Bailey he was advised that his property had been accidentally thrown away. (Doc. 1, p.

3). 

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); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9 Cir. th

2003)(“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent...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. 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, as mentioned, Petitioner alleges that the jail wrongfully threw away his

personal property after he was transferred to another facility in Vista, California. The petition

contains no specific prayer for relief. Clearly, under such circumstances, Petitioner is

challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Even

were the Court to grant the petition, e.g., by ordering either the return of his personal property or

compensation therefore, such relief would “not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.” 

Ramirez, 334 F. 3d at 859. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this

2

Case 1:10-cv-00675-JLT Document 4 Filed 04/29/10 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

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, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED because the petition

does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus relief;

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the file;

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner the standard form for claims

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and,

4. No certificate of appealability is required in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

3

Case 1:10-cv-00675-JLT Document 4 Filed 04/29/10 Page 3 of 3