Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00216/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00216-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENARD DARNELL NEAL,

Petitioner,

v.

HECTOR A. RIOS,

Respondent.

 /

1:10-cv-00216-LJO-SMS (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS AND REQUEST FOR

CLASS CERTIFICATION

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 10, 2010, along

with several other inmates he claims are similarly situated and requests class certification. 

(Petition, at 1-5.) 

DISCUSSION

I. Request for Class Certification

Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern whether a class action should

be certified. Rule 23(a) lists four conjunctive requirements that must be satisfied to certify a

class action: numerosity, commonality of issues, typicality of the representative plaintiffs’

claims, and adequacy of representation. A class may only be certified if the court is “satisfied,

after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied.” Gen. Tel. Co.

of the S.W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982). The moving party bears the burden of proof

1

Case 1:10-cv-00216-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 03/24/10 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

under Rule 23(a). Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9 Cir. 1992). Class action th

suits brought pursuant in a habeas corpus action are ordinarily disfavored. Rodriguez v. Hayes,

__ F.3d __, 2001 WL 6394 (9 Cir. 2010); Cox v. McCarthy, 829 F.2d 800, 804 (9 Cir. 1987). th th

Beyond arguing that all of the prisoners listed on the petition remain in the Security Housing

Unit, Petitioner has failed to provide anything more than bare allegations for requesting a class

action, and Petitioner’s request should be denied. See e.g. Morrison v. Booth, 763 F.2d 1366,

1371 (11 Cir. 1985)(moving party “must provide more than bare allegations that they satisfy the th

requirements of Rule 23 for class certification”); see also Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines Inc., 249

F.3d 672, 677 (7 Cir. 2001). In any event, as explained supra, the petition must be dismissed th

for failure to state a cognizable claim under § 2241, and on that basis there is no reason to certify

a class action in this case. 

II. Failure to State Cognizable Claim Under Section 2241

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." 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 is seeking a transfer to a different facility or to general population

within Atwater prison. Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or

duration of that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this

2

Case 1:10-cv-00216-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 03/24/10 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

petition must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by

way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s request for class certification be DENIED; and

2. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a

cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 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 Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within fourteen (14) days 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 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 24, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-00216-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 03/24/10 Page 3 of 3