Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01269/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01269-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE PEYTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

WARDEN DARREL ADAMS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 05-1269 REC WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the court to make a preliminary

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in

the district court." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see, also, Hendricks v.

Case 1:05-cv-01269-AWI-WMW Document 5 Filed 11/01/05 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 2

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990).

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner

can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

“According to traditional interpretation, the writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon

the legality or duration of confinement.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979)

citing, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-86 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to

Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner’s allegations, however, do not

make such attacks. Rather, Petitioner challenges the decision to classify him as a gang

member and also alleges that prison officials refused to allow him to exhaust his

administrative remedies. Petitioner’s claims therefore challenge the conditions of his

confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Thus, his claims are not

appropriate for habeas corpus relief. Challenges to the conditions of confinement are more

appropriately raised in civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Badea v. Cox,

931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d at 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979). 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition be

DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to file an appropriate civil rights action.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 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 Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

Case 1:05-cv-01269-AWI-WMW Document 5 Filed 11/01/05 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 3

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

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

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01269-AWI-WMW Document 5 Filed 11/01/05 Page 3 of 3