Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01861/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01861-1/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

1

 Petitioner is incarcerated at California State Prison – Sacramento. A writ of habeas corpus acts

upon the custodian of the state prisoner. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In

compliance with this Court’s September 14, 2009 Order [Doc. No. 4], Petitioner correctly names in his

First Amended Petition [Doc. No. 6] James Walker, current Warden of CSP – Sacramento, as the proper

respondent in this matter. 

- 1 - 09cv1861

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND MEDINA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09cv1861-MMA(POR)

vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 15]

DENYING AS MOOT

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS;

[Doc. No. 11]

DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL;

[Doc. No. 16]

DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED

PETITION.

[Doc. No. 6]

JAMES WALKER,1

 Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Case 3:09-cv-01861-MMA-POR Document 17 Filed 05/18/10 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 - 09cv1861

Petitioner Raymond Medina, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus [Doc. No. 1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, superseded by his First Amended Petition

(“FAP”) [Doc. No. 6]. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 11] the FAP. The matter

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter for preparation of a Report and

Recommendation [Doc. No. 15] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3. 

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the

Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is

made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the magistrate [judge].” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874

F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). When no objections are filed, as is the case here, a district court may

assume the correctness of the magistrate judge’s factual findings and decide the motion on the

applicable law. Johnson v. Nelson, 142 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1217 (S.D.Cal. 2001) (citing Campbell v.

United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1989)). Having reviewed the magistrate

judge’s well-reasoned report, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. 

The magistrate judge correctly determined that Petitioner’s FAP is subject to dismissal

because he fails to state a cognizable claim for relief, depriving the Court of subject matter

jurisdiction. To invoke habeas corpus review by a federal court, a petitioner must satisfy two

jurisdictional requirements: (1) the status requirement that the petition be “in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court;” and (2) the substantive requirement that the

petition challenge the legality of that custody on the ground that it is “in violation of the Constitution

or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The FAP does not satisfy the second

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

that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief and the Court shall dismiss

the FAP in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 

As noted above, Petitioner did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation. It

appears that he filed a renewed motion for appointment of counsel in lieu of objections [Doc. No.

16]. Petitioner states in his declaration in support of the motion that he received the Report and

Case 3:09-cv-01861-MMA-POR Document 17 Filed 05/18/10 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

2

 Furthermore, the Court echoes the sentiments of the magistrate judge expressed in her order

denying Petitioner’s original motion for appointment of counsel – Petitioner has a sufficient

understanding of the issues, evidenced by his filings, such that the interests of justice do not demand

appointment of counsel in this case. (See October 28, 2009 Order, Doc. No. 8, p.2.) 

3

 The Court has discretion to construe the FAP as a civil rights complaint. See Wilwording v.

Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (holding that district courts have discretion to construe a habeas

petition attacking conditions of confinement as a complaint under section 1983 despite deliberate choice

by petitioner to proceed on habeas), superceded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Woodford

v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). However, because Petitioner does not articulate clearly which of his

constitutional rights may have been violated as a result of Respondents’ alleged actions, the Court shall

not construe the FAP as a civil rights complaint.

- 3 - 09cv1861

Recommendation but he does not understand its implications and therefore he requires the assistance

of an attorney in preparing a second amended petition stating a cognizable habeas claim. (See

Petitioner’s Decl’n., para.3.) Due to the nature of Petitioner’s claims, as discussed above, any

further amendment of his habeas petition would be futile and the FAP shall be dismissed. As such,

the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel as moot.2

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the First Amended Petition for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner

filing a separate civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which will be assigned a

separate civil case number.3 The Court instructs the Clerk to attach to this order and forward to

Petitioner a copy of the civil rights form complaint used in this District, as well as the cover sheet

providing instructions for filing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 18, 2010

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01861-MMA-POR Document 17 Filed 05/18/10 Page 3 of 3