Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00455/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00455-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES THOMAS “OZZY” WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0455 LKK DAD P

vs.

M. CRY, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner confined in California Medical Facility. Petitioner’s

pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus and application to proceed in forma pauperis are before

the court. 

Petitioner requests CDC records that he needs for appeal purposes. Petitioner

explains that his request for the records “was unconstitutionally rejected by CMF Appeals Office

and counselor” and that he is “forced to have this appellate court correct it.” (Pet. at pages

numbered (2) and (6).)

Federal district courts are not appellate courts. A federal district court cannot

entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought by a person in custody pursuant to the

judgment of a state court unless the habeas petition has been brought on the ground that the

petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28

Case 2:06-cv-00455-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 08/22/06 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

2

U.S.C. § 2254(a). Federal habeas relief is available only for challenges to the duration or legality

of a prisoner’s confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). A state prisoner

who seeks relief from unconstitutional conditions of confinement or unconstitutional actions by

custodial staff may be able to present his claims to a federal district court in a civil rights action

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after exhausting available administrative remedies.

The habeas petition filed in this action must be dismissed because it does not state

a basis for federal habeas corpus relief. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases (“If it

plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits attached to it that the petitioner is

not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal

. . . .”). Petitioner’s in forma pauperis application will be denied, and the undersigned will

recommend that the district judge dismiss this case without prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court will be directed to provide petitioner with a civil rights

complaint form and the in forma pauperis application form to be submitted with such a

complaint. If petitioner chooses to file a civil rights complaint, his complaint and in forma

pauperis application must be submitted for filing as a new action. The case number assigned to

this habeas case should not be included on the civil rights complaint, as a new case must be

opened and a new case number will be assigned.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s March 6, 2006 application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send petitioner a civil rights complaint form and

the in forma pauperis application used in civil rights actions in this district; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice because

it plainly appears from the face of the habeas petition that petitioner is not entitled to federal

habeas corpus relief.

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)(l). Within twenty

Case 2:06-cv-00455-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 08/22/06 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

3

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 22, 2006.

DAD:13

will0455.156

Case 2:06-cv-00455-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 08/22/06 Page 3 of 3