Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02120/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02120-3/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MILORAD OLIC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WARDEN JOE A. LIZARRAGA, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-2120 KJM GGH P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a “motion to return to Mule Creek 

State Prison.” He sets forth various claims of misconduct by prison officials, including being 

transferred to another prison based on false information and without notice or paperwork, that he 

was brutally attacked by a CDCR officer, that he was moved yet again to CSP-Sacramento 

“without any explanation or ICC endorsement,” and that he has no access to library services. 

Petitioner claims that these actions constitute violations of his constitutional rights. 

Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related 

to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 

and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. 

1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of 

any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the 

province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 

93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); requests for relief turning on 

circumstances of confinement may be presented in a 1983 action. 

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749, 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004) (per curiam). 

Case 2:14-cv-02120-KJM-GGH Document 31 Filed 07/14/15 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

Here, the motion does not pertain to the validity or duration of petitioner’s confinement 

which is the subject of his pending habeas petition, but to the conditions of his confinement. It is 

clear that by this filing petitioner makes new civil rights claims which are appropriate for a new 

civil rights action, and are not pertinent to this habeas petition.1 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: Petitioner’s “motion to return to Mule Creek State 

Prison,” filed July 7, 2015, (ECF No. 29), is denied without prejudice to petitioner filing the same 

claims in a new civil rights action. 

DATED: July 13, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076/Olic2120.civrts 

 

1

 The allegation that petitioner has not received library access does not implicate this habeas 

corpus action at the present time as the amended petition has already been filed, and respondent is 

due to file a response shortly. If petitioner encounters problems with library access in preparing 

his reply, he is directed to immediately inform this court. 

Case 2:14-cv-02120-KJM-GGH Document 31 Filed 07/14/15 Page 2 of 2