Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00310/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00310-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

A.K. SCRIBNER, WARDEN

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-0310 AWI DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 2, 2005. Petitioner

challenges the handling of his inmate grievances concerning the conditions of his confinement at

Wasco State Prison. 

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

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

district court." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see, also, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908

F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the Court finds that the Petition does not allege

grounds cognizable in a federal habeas corpus action. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00310-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 05/20/05 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

27

28

2

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). 

"According to traditional interpretation, the writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon the

legality or duration of confinement." Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979) citing,

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-86 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner’s allegations, however, do not make such

attacks. Petitioner merely contends that prison officials failed to adequately process and/or

respond to his inmate grievances. Thus, his assertions are not a direct challenge to fact or

duration of his overall confinement, but rather to the conditions of his confinement. As such, the

claims are not appropriate for habeas corpus review. Challenges to the conditions of

confinement are more appropriately raised in a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d at 891-92

(9th Cir. 1979). 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED as the Petition raises claims not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus action. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Court

Judge assigned to the 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 of these Findings and

Recommendations, 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 Findings and

Recommendations." Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court

days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. The Court will then

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00310-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 05/20/05 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

27

28

3

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00310-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 05/20/05 Page 3 of 3