Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00761/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00761-0/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDY L. WILLIAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

WARDEN MENDOZA-POWERS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 05 0761 REC LJO HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS 

[Doc. #1]

On May 23, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States

District Court for the Central District of California. By order of the Court dated June 13, 2005, the

action was transferred to the Eastern District of California and received in this Court.

DISCUSSION

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 petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254

Cases; see also Hendricks v. 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). 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

Case 1:05-cv-00761-NEW Document 4 Filed 08/22/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

(9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes

to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 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. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at

574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

In this case, Petitioner claims he has been wrongfully classified as a sex offender by prison

staff. Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that

confinement. Therefore, his claim should be raised in a civil rights action. To the extent that

Petitioner’s challenge seeks to implicate a liberty interest protected by due process, his challenge

fails. In a habeas proceeding, a prisoner is only entitled to due process protection for State action

that would “inevitably affect the duration of his sentence." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487, 115

S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). In this case, Petitioner’s classification has no bearing on the

duration of his sentence. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition must

be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a civil

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas

corpus relief. The Court further RECOMMENDS that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to send

Petitioner the standard form for claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Robert E. Coyle, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The

Case 1:05-cv-00761-NEW Document 4 Filed 08/22/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

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: August 21, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00761-NEW Document 4 Filed 08/22/05 Page 3 of 3