Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00376/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00376-0/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

MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

BAKERSFIELD LERDO PRETRIAL,

SHERIFF DEPARTMENT,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-0376 OWW SMS 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 in the United States District

Court for the Central District of California on March 17, 2006. The petition was transferred to

this Court on April 5, 2006. 

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." 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

Case 1:06-cv-00376-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 04/28/06 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

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 the instant petition, Petitioner contends that he is currently awaiting trial in the Kern

County Superior Court. In the first ground for relief, Petitioner is challenging a conflict with his

trial attorney and, in the second ground for relief, Petitioner contends that prison officials have

denied him medical treatment at the Lerdo jail facility. 

With regard to Petitioner’s first ground for relief, the claim is not yet ripe for review, as

Petitioner as not convicted. Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not

interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief

except under special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger

abstention is required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state

proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate

opportunity to raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State

Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223

(9th Cir. 1994). The rationale of Younger applies throughout the appellate proceedings,

requiring that state appellate review of a state court judgment be exhausted before federal court

intervention is permitted. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223 (even if criminal trials were completed at

time of abstention decision, state court proceedings still considered pending). Thus, dismissal at

this juncture, does not prevent Petitioner form returning to federal court in the future. 

With regard to Petitioner’s second ground for relief, it is not cognizable under § 2254, as

it challenges the conditions of his confinement. Petitioner challenges the denial of mental

treatment, therefore, 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

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

Case 1:06-cv-00376-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 04/28/06 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

way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The instant petition be dismissed, without prejudice; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment; thus, terminating this action.

These Findings and Recommendations are 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 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 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 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: April 28, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00376-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 04/28/06 Page 3 of 3