Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00597/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00597-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BASILIO RAIMUNDO MITCHELL, No. CIV S-10-597-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this apparent petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In a prior order, the court directed petitioner

to clarify the nature of this action. The court stated:

Petitioner’s handwritten pleading is lengthy and difficult to

discern. Attached to the pleading, however, is a December 14, 2009, order

from the Solano County Superior Court which contains the following

summary:

In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed

with this Court on October 22, 2009, Petitioner

Basilio Mitchell appears to complain about the

conditions of confinement at California State Prison

– Solano. From what can be gleaned from

Petitioner’s handwritten petition, it appears that

Petitioner requests compensation for lost or stolen

personal property and a transfer to some form of

Case 2:10-cv-00597-WBS-CMK Document 9 Filed 04/13/10 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

2

single cell housing. It also seems that Petitioner

may have suffered some adverse consequences from

refusing a cell move ordered by prison authorities. 

Citing In re Dexter, 25 Cal.App.32 921, 925 (1979), the court denied the

petition based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. As the state

court observed, some component of petitioner’s case seems to be a

challenge to the conditions of his confinement (i.e., the request for singlecell status and request for compensation for lost property). It also appears

that there may be a component of petitioners case which challenges some

kind of adverse consequence suffered as a result of a disciplinary

violation. To the extent the adverse consequence was a loss of good-time

credits, the latter may present a claim relating to the duration of

petitioner’s confinement. 

* * *

Because the court cannot discern conclusively whether this

action presents claims relating to the conditions of confinement, the

duration of confinement, or some combination of both, petitioner will be

provided an opportunity to file an amended petition which only raises

claims relating to the duration of his confinement. In particular, petitioner

is informed consistent with the standards outlined above that any claims

related to the conditions of his confinement cannot proceed in this habeas

action. Such claims must be filed as a separate civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. If petitioner intended by the instant filing to present only

civil rights claims challenging the conditions of confinement, he may

accept voluntary dismissal of this action and proceed with a new action. 

Failure to file an amended petition will be considered as petitioner’s

consent to voluntary dismissal of this action in favor of proceeding with a

separately-filed civil rights action. 

On April 2, 2010, petitioner filed an amended habeas corpus petition which appears to challenge

only the fact or duration of his confinement arising from a 2005 conviction out of Sacramento

County. The amended petition will be addressed separately. 

Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or filed a complete application to proceed in

forma pauperis, along with a “certification from the warden or other appropriate officer of the

place of confinement showing the amount of money or securities that the petitioner has in any

account in the institution” as required by Rule 3(a)(2) of the Federal Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases, or paid the required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). Petitioner will

be provided the opportunity to submit either a completed application to proceed in forma

pauperis, with the required certification, or pay the appropriate filing fee. As to the certification

Case 2:10-cv-00597-WBS-CMK Document 9 Filed 04/13/10 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

3

requirement, while a copy of petitioner’s prison trust account statement certified by prison

officials is not required to satisfy the requirement, such a statement will suffice. Petitioner is

warned that failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action for lack of

prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner shall submit on the form provided by the Clerk of the Court,

within 30 days from the date of this order, a complete application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, with the certification required by Rule 3(a)(2), or pay the appropriate filing fee; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a new form

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner.

DATED: April 12, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00597-WBS-CMK Document 9 Filed 04/13/10 Page 3 of 3