Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00808/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00808-1/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

ELAINE K. VILLAREAL,

Petitioner,

v.

COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00808-SAB-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING 

CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, 

AND DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States 

Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 7).

I.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” By statute, federal courts “shall entertain 

an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the 

judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution 

or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A claim is cognizable in habeas 

Case 1:16-cv-00808-SAB Document 8 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 4
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

when a prisoner challenges “the fact or duration of his confinement” and “seeks either immediate 

release from that confinement or the shortening of its duration.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 

475, 489 (1973). 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 confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 

U.S. 136, 141–42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499.

In the instant petition, Petitioner claims that the living conditions at the Fresno County 

jail are inhumane and there is no proper rehabilitation for inmates. (ECF No. 1 at 3–4).1

Petitioner does not challenge any aspect of her conviction or sentence or the fact or duration of 

her confinement. The Ninth Circuit has “long held that prisoners may not challenge mere 

conditions of confinement in habeas corpus.” Nettles v. Grounds, --- F.3d ----, 2016 WL 

4072465, at *8 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016) (en banc) (citing Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891–92 

(9th Cir. 1979)). Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus 

relief, and this petition must be dismissed.

Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to the 

question of whether a certificate of appealability should issue. See Rule 11, Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement 

to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain 

circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). The controlling statute in 

determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 

2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to 

review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which 

the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a 

proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another 

district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a 

criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of 

such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of 

appeals from–

 

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:16-cv-00808-SAB Document 8 Filed 08/12/16 Page 2 of 4
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

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which 

the detention complained of arises out of process issued by 

a State court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) 

only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 

indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing 

required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying 

constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason 

would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 

procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar 

is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist 

could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the 

petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 

determination that Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition should be dismissed debatable or 

wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to 

issue a certificate of appealability.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00808-SAB Document 8 Filed 08/12/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

II.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case; and

3. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00808-SAB Document 8 Filed 08/12/16 Page 4 of 4