Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01495/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01495-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COREY GLASSMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

v. )

)

JAMES YATES, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-cv-01495-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PETITIONER A FORM COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 4, 2007, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and

Recommendation recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED because

the Petition did not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §

2254. (Doc. 9). The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date of service of that order. On

December 19, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation. (Doc. 10). 

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

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections,

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

record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis. 

Case 1:07-cv-01495-AWI -TAG Document 11 Filed 01/17/08 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

Petitioner correctly states in his objections that “leave to amend should be granted unless the

district court determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other

facts.” Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9 Cir.2001). However, as explained by the th

Magistrate Judge, Petitioner cannot proceed with his First Amendment claims in a habeas corpus

petition even if Petitioner is only seeking declaratory relief. While challenges to a state court’s

incarceration of a petitioner or the length of that incarceration are proper in a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenges to the conditions of prison life are properly

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 142 (1991); Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 n.15 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. Amendment to the pending habeas corpus petition would be futile

because Petitioner is challenging prison regulations that he claims denied him of his First

Amendment rights. The court is not finding Petitioner's claims are barred. Rather, the court is

only finding Petitioner cannot proceed with them in a habeas corpus action. Petitioner remains free

to file a civil rights action containing his First Amendment claims. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued December 4, 2007 (Doc. 9), is ADOPTED

IN FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED; 

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail Petitioner a form complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01495-AWI -TAG Document 11 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 2