Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02248/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02248-2/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 James Yates is substituted as respondent. See Rule 2(a), Rules

Governing § 2254 Proceedings; Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Anthony Turner,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 03-2248 DFL PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

James Yates, Warden,

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

challenging a 1998 conviction for possessing an illegal

substance. Respondent1 moves to dismiss upon the ground the

application contains challenges to the conditions of petitioner’s

confinement that are unexhausted. Petitioner opposes.

Habeas corpus is the remedy available for a prisoner seeking

release from custody and a civil rights action is the remedy for 

a prisoner challenging the conditions of his confinement. 

Case 2:03-cv-02248-DFL-EFB Document 34 Filed 06/03/05 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

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). When a prisoner

evinces a clear intent to state a habeas claim, the district

court should treat his pleading as a habeas petition. See

Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995).

Where a prisoner alleges some grounds for habeas relief and

others for civil rights violations, the court should dismiss the

civil rights claims without prejudice and permit the petitioner

to return to state court with any unexhausted habeas claims. 

Trimble, 49 F.3d at 586. 

In his pleading, petitioner makes the following claims: (1)

the prosecution was in retaliation for his appeal of a sentencing

error related to a different conviction; (2) enhancing his

sentence using a 21-year old burglary conviction obtained through

plea bargaining violated due process; (3) enhancing his sentence

using remote convictions violated state law; (4) corrections

officials improperly have extended petitioner’s sentence by

unjustifiably disciplining him and revoking good time credits;

(5) petitioner’s sentence constitutes cruel and unusual

punishment; (6) the trial court relied on an inapplicable statute

to enhance petitioner’s sentence; (7) petitioner has been

subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement and

denied constitutionally adequate medical care during his extended

imprisonment. 

Claim seven contains a litany of allegations concerning the

conditions of his confinement and should be dismissed without

prejudice. See Trimble. 

Case 2:03-cv-02248-DFL-EFB Document 34 Filed 06/03/05 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

For these reasons, respondents’ March 14, 2005, motion to

dismiss should be granted in part and claim seven should be

dismissed without prejudice, and respondents should be directed

to file and serve an answer to the petition within 30 days.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: June 2, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02248-DFL-EFB Document 34 Filed 06/03/05 Page 3 of 3