Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01812/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01812-0/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LORCHUE THAO, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RONALD RACKLEY, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-1812-MCE-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that it must be summarily dismissed. 

See Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (requiring summary dismissal of habeas petition if, 

upon initial review by a judge, it plainly appears “that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the 

district court”). 

Federal courts offer two main avenues to relief on complaints related to one’s 

imprisonment – a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a civil rights 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of one’s confinement or the 

duration of one’s confinement are properly brought in a habeas action, whereas requests for relief 

turning on the circumstances of one’s confinement are properly brought in a § 1983 action. 

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 

Case 2:15-cv-01812-MCE-EFB Document 6 Filed 12/01/15 Page 1 of 2
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

(1973)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“[A] district court 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.”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

In this case, petitioner alleges that the Unit Classification Committee misapplied 

regulations to deny him participation in the overnight family visitation program. ECF No. 1. 

This claim concerns only the conditions of his confinement. It does not sound in habeas because 

it does not concern the validity or duration of his confinement. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 

his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 

event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 

§ 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a 

final order adverse to the applicant). 

Dated: December 1, 2015. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-01812-MCE-EFB Document 6 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 2