Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02422/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02422-0/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 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EDWARD MONTGOMERY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SOLANO STATE PRISON, CDC, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-2422-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that it must be summarily dismissed. See Rule 4, 

Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (requiring summary dismissal of habeas petition if, upon initial 

review by a judge, it plainly appears “that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 

court”). 

Federal courts offer two main avenues to relief on complaints related to one’s 

imprisonment – a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a civil rights 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of one’s confinement or the 

duration of one’s confinement are properly brought in a habeas action, whereas requests for relief 

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; 

see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

Case 2:15-cv-02422-EFB Document 12 Filed 04/08/16 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

turning on the circumstances of one’s confinement are properly brought in a § 1983 action. 

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 

(1973)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ 

of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only 

on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States.”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

In this case, petitioner complains about inadequate living space allegedly amounting to 

cruel and unusual punishment at Solano State Prison.2 ECF No. 1 at 2-4. This habeas action 

must be summarily dismissed because petitioner’s claim concerns only the conditions of his 

confinement. It does not sound in habeas because it does not concern the validity or duration of 

his confinement. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for an extension of time 

(ECF No. 4) is denied and this action is dismissed. 

Dated: April 7, 2016. 

 2

 Petitioner also requests an extension of time. ECF No. 4. That request is denied as 

unnecessary, as there is no court-imposed deadline to extend. ECF No. 4. 

Case 2:15-cv-02422-EFB Document 12 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 2