Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00943/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00943-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENE J. ZAMORA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

M. D. BITER, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—00943-LJO-SKO-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DOC. 15)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local

Rules 302 and 303. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s

motion for injunctive relief, which was part and parcel of a

document docketed as a motion for an extension of time to file a

traverse. The motion was filed on November 2, 2012 (doc. 15 at

3).

I. Motion for Injunctive Relief 

In the motion, Petitioner sought an extension of time to

1

Case 1:12-cv-00943-LJO-SKO Document 18 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 4
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

file his traverse because of difficulties Petitioner alleged he

had encountered in connection with his efforts to conduct legal

research in the prison law library. In connection with his

complaints concerning access to, and the contents of, the prison

law library, Petitioner sought an order directing the warden of

his custodial institution to comply with requirements set forth

in various state regulations. (Doc. 15 at 3.) Petitioner also

sought an order directing the warden to update the “C.D. ROM” in

the library that contained case authority. (Id.) The portion of

the request concerning an extension of time was granted by

separate order, and Petitioner subsequently filed his traverse on

December 20, 2012.

After reading the request in its entirety, the Court

concludes that it is clear that Petitioner is challenging the

conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that

confinement. 

Relief by way of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241 extends to a prisoner who shows that the custody

violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 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 Note to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases (Habeas Rules), 1976 Adoption. 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);

2

Case 1:12-cv-00943-LJO-SKO Document 18 Filed 01/23/13 Page 2 of 4
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

Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory

Committee Note to Habeas Rule 1, 1976 adoption. 

Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of his

confinement, and not the legality or duration of his confinement;

thus, these particular claims are cognizable in a civil rights

action rather than a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Accordingly, it will be recommended that the request for

injunctive relief be denied.

II. Recommendation

In accordance with the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that 

Petitioner’s request for injunctive relief be DENIED. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to the 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 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 Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within fourteen (14) days (plus three (3) 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

///

///

///

3

Case 1:12-cv-00943-LJO-SKO Document 18 Filed 01/23/13 Page 3 of 4
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

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:12-cv-00943-LJO-SKO Document 18 Filed 01/23/13 Page 4 of 4