Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02804/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02804-1/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAGHVENDRA SINGH, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JEFF MACOMBER, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:23-cv-02804-EFB (HC) 

ORDER AND FINDNGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has filed two motions seeking an order compelling state 

officials to release him. ECF Nos. 5, 6. 

It is an open question in the Ninth Circuit whether district courts may grant provisional 

release from incarceration to a habeas petitioner pending resolution of the petition. United States 

v. McCandless, 841 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 2016); In re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001). If 

courts do possess such authority, provisional release is reserved for extraordinary cases involving 

special circumstances or a high probability of success. McCandless, 841 F.3d at 822. 

Petitioner argues that he was convicted of a “non-crime,” but he fails to make a cogent 

argument supporting that position. He also argues that he is unable to obtain adequate 

programming and health care at his current institution. Such arguments, which concern the 

conditions of petitioner’s confinement rather than the merits of his habeas petition, are properly 

Case 2:23-cv-02804-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 10/01/24 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 

raised through the prison’s administrative grievance procedure and/or a civil rights suit under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n.13 (2011) (“[W]hen a prisoner's claim 

would not necessarily spell speedier release, that claim does not lie at the core of habeas corpus, 

and may be brought, if at all, under § 1983.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district 

judge to this action. It is further RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motions for release (ECF 

Nos. 5, 6) be DENIED. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: October 1, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-02804-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 10/01/24 Page 2 of 2