Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01213/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01213-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN R. ROSS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-cv-01213-LJO-TAG HC 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 28, 2005, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of

habeas corpus in this Court. (Doc. 1).

Petitioner is a state prisoner serving a term of life without parole for a murder conviction. 

He maintains in the instant petition that the Point Classification System used to determine which

facilities an inmate is assigned to discriminates against prisoners serving “life without parole”

sentences. Petitioner alleges he has been incarcerated since 1979 on the present conviction, and

that he has maintained a sufficiently low classification to justify incarceration in a Level III

facility. However, Respondent’s application of the Classification System has denied him the

transfer from his current Level IV facility. 

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it

Case 1:05-cv-01213-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 03/30/07 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

27

28

2

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule

4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490

(9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the

petitioner can show that “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . .” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality

or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. 

McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d

at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

In this case, Petitioner complains that CDCR’s Classification System, that determines

whether inmates will be placed in less or more secure facilities, with correspondingly less or

more ancillary inmate programs, discriminates against prisoners who are serving “life without

parole” sentences. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-37). Petitioner maintains he is entitled, by virtue of his

classification history, to be transferred from a Level IV prison to a Level III prison. (Id.). 

Petitioner requests an “over-view and total re-construction or cancellation of Points/Score for

LWOP’s be granted.” (Id. at p. 20). Petitioner is thus challenging the conditions of his

confinement, i.e., specifically the facility in which he is currently incarcerated, not the fact or

duration of his confinement. Because Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his present

confinement, there is no habeas relief that this Court can provide. Petitioner is not entitled to

habeas corpus relief, and therefore this petition must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to

pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS:

1. That the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED because the

petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus relief; and 

Case 1:05-cv-01213-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 03/30/07 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

27

28

3

2. That the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to send Petitioner the standard form for claims

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 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 Report and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01213-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 03/30/07 Page 3 of 3