Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00544/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00544-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

COREY BURGESS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

HECTOR ALFONSO RIOS, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—00544-AWI-SKO-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE: DISMISSAL OF

SOME CLAIMS WITHOUT LEAVE TO

AMEND (DOCS. 11, 7)

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT LEAVE TO

AMEND PETITIONER’S CLAIMS IN THE

FIRST AMENDED PETITION CONCERNING

CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT AND

VIOLATIONS OF THE EQUAL

PROTECTION CLAUSE AND THE SIXTH,

EIGHTH, NINTH, AND THIRTEENTH

AMENDMENTS (DOC. 7)

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOCS. 11, 10)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER (DOC. 10)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDERS (DOCS. 19, 20) 

ORDER REFERRING THE PROCEEDING

BACK TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO

DIRECT THE FILING OF A RESPONSE

TO THE REMAINING CLAIMS IN THE

FIRST AMENDED PETITION

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

1

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 22 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 4
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

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to the Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302

through 304. Pending before the Court are findings and

recommendations as well as motions for injunctive relief.

I. Findings and Recommendations 

On July 5, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and

recommendations recommending the dismissal without leave to amend

of some claims in the first amended petition (FAP), the dismissal

of Petitioner’s request for a temporary restraining order, and

referral of the proceeding back to the Magistrate Judge to direct

the Respondent to respond to the remaining claims in the FAP. 

The findings and recommendations were served on all parties on

the same date. The findings and recommendations permitted the

filing of objections within thirty days. On August 31, 2012,

Petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations,

which the Court will consider to have been timely filed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

The undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file and has

considered the objections; the undersigned has determined there

is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based on

the points raised in the objections. The Court finds that the

report and recommendation is supported by the record and proper

analysis.

II. Additional Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders

On August 14, 2012, Petitioner filed a document styled as a

letter or motion to produce in which Petitioner sought a

2

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 22 Filed 09/17/12 Page 2 of 4
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

temporary restraining order against specified prison staff

members from discriminating and interfering with Petitioner,

using unspecified force against Petitioner, withholding legal

documents submitted for copying, and separating Petitioner from

his property due to Petitioner’s in transit status. (Doc. 19, 1-

2.) Petitioner also sought legal documents previously provided

to staff, some form of compensation, and transfer.

On August 20, 2012, Petitioner filed a document styled as a

notice to the Court in which Petitioner noted the subsequent

return to him of the documents he had previously delivered to

prison staff but sought a temporary restraining order and

transfer or release from custody. (Doc. 20, 1-2.)

After reading the motions in their entirety, it is clear

that Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement,

not the fact or duration of that confinement. 

It is established that relief by way of a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 extends to a prisoner who

shows that the custody violates the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 

A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a

prisoner to challenge the legality or duration of his

confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991)

(quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973));

Advisory Committee Note to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases (Habeas Rules), 1976 Adoption.

In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the

conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S.

3

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 22 Filed 09/17/12 Page 3 of 4
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

136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at

574; Advisory Committee Note to Habeas Rule 1, 1976 Adoption. 

Because in the motions Petitioner seeks to challenge the

conditions of his confinement, and not the legality or duration

of his confinement, these particular claims are cognizable in a

civil rights action rather than a petition for writ of habeas

corpus. 

Accordingly, it will be ordered that Petitioner’s motions be

dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on July 5, 2012,

are ADOPTED in full; 

2. Petitioner’s claims in the FAP concerning violations of

the Equal Protection Clause, the Sixth Amendment, Eighth

Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Thirteenth Amendment, various program

statements, and claims concerning the Petitioner’s conditions of

confinement are DISMISSED without leave to amend; 

3. Petitioner’s motions for temporary restraining orders

are DENIED; and 

4. The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to

direct a response to the remaining claims in the first amended

petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 14, 2012 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 22 Filed 09/17/12 Page 4 of 4