Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01328/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01328-1/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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \10cv1328 d ism iss.w pd, 71210 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL KENNETH PORTER Civil No. 10-1328 LAB (BGS)

Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS

CORPUS

vs.

C.D.C.R., 

Respondent.

On June 18, 21010,Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Eastern District of California. [Doc.

No. 1.] On June 23, 2010, the case was transferred to this Court. [Doc. No. 2.] 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS

Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents.

Petitioner lists various problems he claims he is facing in prison. Specifically, Petitioner claims

that he has reported two incidents of administrative and custodial misconduct and has not been

given a crime incident report despite numerous requests. Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable

on habeas because it does not challenge the constitutional validity or duration of confinement.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). “Section 2254 applies only to collateral attacks on state court

Case 3:10-cv-01328-LAB-BGS Document 6 Filed 07/12/10 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

 Petitioner filed a § 1983 complaint in case number 09cv1566 MMA (PCL), which was dismissed on August 26, 1

2009.

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \10cv1328 d ism iss.w pd, 71210 -2-

judgments.” McGuire v. Blubaum, 376 F. Supp. 284, 285 (D. Ariz. 1974).

In no way does Petitioner claim his state court conviction violates the Constitution or laws

or treaties of the United States. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for

summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and

any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4,

28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled

to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged that the state court violated his federal rights.

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement are

brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 488-500.

When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and

the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release

from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 500. On the

other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional

challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody. Id. at

499; McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). It

appears that Petitioner challenges the conditions of his prison life, but not the fact or length of

his custody. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2254. 1

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-01328-LAB-BGS Document 6 Filed 07/12/10 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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \10cv1328 d ism iss.w pd, 71210 -3-

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice for failure to

state a cognizable claim on habeas corpus. IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED THAT

JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING THE PETITION AND THE ACTION.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 10, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01328-LAB-BGS Document 6 Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 3