Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01865/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01865-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

BRANDON FAVOR-EL,

Plaintiff,

v.

MYCHELLE ROME, et al.,

Defendants.

1:15-cv-01865-LJO-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 

FOR RELEASE

(ECF NOS. 20, 22, & 29)

Brandon Favor-El (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Custody Relief 

to be Released Under Police Authority, Sentence Rehearing, Examination with New Discovered 

Evidence and Case Attachment as One Matter Under More Than one Civic Violation.” (ECF No. 

20). On August 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed an “Emergency Urgent Request Order Removal of 

Prisoner for Police Interview.” (ECF No. 22). On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff 

Filing Order to Transfer Case to Western Division for County Prosecution and Release on Either 

Bail, Bond or Own Recognizance, Investigative Order Filing, Motion to Vacate Sentence, Filing 

on Information District Attorney, Evidentiary Hearing Motion, Motion for Custody Authority 

Hearing and Inmate/Prisoner Release, Motion on Public Safety After Inmate-Prisoner Detainee 

Arrest.” (ECF No. 29). 

Despite the titles of these motions, the Court construes all three motions as motions for 

release, because that is the relief asked for in each motion (ECF No. 20, p. 2; ECF No. 22, p. 2; 

ECF No. 29, p. 9). In at least two of the motions, Plaintiff also seems to be asking for an 

Case 1:15-cv-01865-LJO-EPG Document 31 Filed 10/31/16 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

opportunity to prove his innocence (ECF No. 22, pgs. 1-2; ECF No. 29, p. 9).

However, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is not the place for a prisoner to challenge his 

sentence. “Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: 

a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 

1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of any 

confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); requests for relief turning 

on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.” Muhammad v. Close, 

540 U.S. 749, 750–51 (2004); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (cert. 

petition filed on October 21, 2016 (NO. 16-6556)). “The [Supreme] Court has long held that 

habeas is the exclusive vehicle for claims brought by state prisoners that fall within the core of 

habeas, and such claims may not be brought in a § 1983 action.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 927.

In two of the motions Plaintiff asks for an opportunity to prove his innocence. In all three 

motions Plaintiff asks to be released. These motions are challenging the validity of Plaintiff’s 

confinement. Therefore, these requests must be brought through a writ of habeas corpus. 

Accordingly, all three of Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01865-LJO-EPG Document 31 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 2