Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00544/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00544-5/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

COREY BURGESS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

HECTOR ALFONSO RIOS, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—00544-AWI-SKO-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

RELIEF (DOC. 28) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DENY PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(DOCS. 27, 31, 43) 

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local

Rules 302 through 304. Pending before the Court are various

motions filed by Petitioner, who is proceeding with a petition

challenging a disciplinary finding that Petitioner committed an

assault upon a fellow inmate on September 7, 2009, which resulted

1

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 44 Filed 03/13/13 Page 1 of 5
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

in a loss of forty days of good time credit, placement in the

secured housing unit for five months, and limitations of various

privileges. On November 19, 2012, Respondent filed an answer to

the petition. Respondent contended that Petitioner was not

denied his constitutional rights in connection with the

disciplinary procedures and findings, and that the finding of

guilt was supported by some evidence. Petitioner filed a

traverse on December 17, 2012. Thus, the case is fully briefed.

I. Motion for Relief 

On October 30, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion for relief

from the disciplinary proceeding that is the subject of the

petition. (Doc. 28.) No opposition was filed. In the motion,

Petitioner alleged that the disciplinary finding was a result of

the misrepresentation and misconduct of prison officials. 

Petitioner prayed for the relief to which he is entitled in this

proceeding pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), which permits a

court to grant relief from a final judgment or order on the basis

of fraud. 

Although the present case is ready for decision, no final

judgment or order has been rendered. Therefore, Petitioner’s

motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) is premature. 

Accordingly, it will be recommended that Petitioner’s motion for

relief be denied. 

II. Motions for Injunctive Relief 

On October 29, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion entitled,

“Motion to Show Cause,” in which Petitioner moved the Court for

an order directing the Respondent to show cause why it was

necessary to transfer Petitioner out of this district during the

2

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 44 Filed 03/13/13 Page 2 of 5
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

pendency of the present proceedings. (Doc. 27.) On November 6,

2012, Petitioner filed a similar motion. (Doc. 31.) Petitioner

also filed proofs of service of the motion or motions on

Respondent. (Doc. 31.) No opposition was filed. Later docket

entries show that Petitioner was transferred to custodial

institutions in Colorado (Doc. 32) and Oklahoma (Doc. 37). The

docket presently indicates that Petitioner’s address is the

Florence High United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado.

On January 18, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion entitled,

“Motion for Consideration and Complaint (Fed. R. Civ. P. 65).” 

(Doc. 43.) Petitioner alleged that prison staff had withheld or

delayed Petitioner’s outgoing legal mail in December 2012. 

Petitioner requested injunctive relief to prevent any such

violations in the future as well as punitive damages. (Doc. 43

at 2-7.) 

Relief by way of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241 extends to a prisoner who shows that the custody

violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 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 Note to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases (Habeas Rules), 1976 Adoption.

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

3

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 44 Filed 03/13/13 Page 3 of 5
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

574; Advisory Committee Note to Habeas Rule 1, 1976 Adoption. 

Because in the motions concerning transfer and mail,

Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement

and not the legality or duration of his confinement, these

particular claims are cognizable in a civil rights action rather

than a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, it will

be recommended that the motions for injunctive relief be denied.

III. Recommendations

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:

1) Petitioner’s motion for relief be DENIED as premature;

and 

2) Petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief be DENIED.

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 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 fourteen (14) days (plus three (3) 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

///

4

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 44 Filed 03/13/13 Page 4 of 5
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

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 44 Filed 03/13/13 Page 5 of 5