Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALLEN YOCOM,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, LAURA 

ELDRIDGE, AND ATTORNEY 

GENERAL,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-HBK

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Doc. No. 11)

Petitioner Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Before the court is 

petitioner’s motion for emergency protective order. (Doc. No. 11). 

Petitioner alleges that certain prison personnel are retaliating against him, have wrongfully 

transferred him to a quarantine unit, are torturing him, and are denying him access to medical care 

and mailing envelopes. (See generally Doc. No. 11). Petitioner requests that this court order 

petitioner be transferred into the custody of the federal prison system. (Id. at 4). Such claims turn 

on petitioner’s conditions of confinement and are inappropriate on habeas review. See Badea v. 

Cox, 931 F. 2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting purpose of habeas is to challenge “legality or 

duration” of a petitioner’s incarceration, quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)). 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 12 Filed 03/26/21 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

2

Instead, “a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a 

constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life.” Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. Therefore, 

to the extent petitioner wishes to challenge his conditions of confinement, he should do so in a 

§ 1983 civil rights action.1 Although the clerk of court recently provided petitioner with a blank 

§ 1983 civil rights complaint form (Doc. No. 8), petitioner’s place of confinement was recently 

changed. (Doc. Nos. 9, 10). Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the court will direct the 

clerk to send an additional blank § 1983 civil rights complaint form to petitioner’s updated 

address.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion for emergency protective order (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED.

2. The clerk of court is directed to provide petitioner with a blank § 1983 civil rights 

complaint form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2021 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 The court, by separate order, has directed the clerk of court to notify the appropriate prison officials of 

petitioner’s claims.

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 12 Filed 03/26/21 Page 2 of 2