Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01577/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01577-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IGNACIO I. LARA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

CHARLES GILKEY, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-cv-01577-LJO-TAG HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS 

ORDER TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN

TWENTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On November 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

(Doc. 1). In that petition, Petitioner alleges he is confined in the California City Correctional

Institution and that Respondent is “not allowing inmates in ‘the SHU’ at California City [to] have

access to the law library books....” (Doc. 1, p. 8). As a remedy, Petitioner requests that this

Court assist him “on these issues.” (Id.). Petitioner also contends that Respondent has not paid

him for the months of May 2006 and that “they keep showing me different paycheck copy’s [sic]

with different amounts at this facility.” (Id.). 

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 face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”

Case 1:06-cv-01577-LJO-TAG Document 12 Filed 12/06/07 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 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 1

2

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490

(9th Cir.1990). 

A habeas corpus action is the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the fact or

duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Badea v. Cox, 931

F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991); Crawford v.

Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-892 (9th Cir. 1979). In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, where the defendants are state actors, or proceeding on a Bivens theory where

1

the defendants are federal actors, is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions

of that confinement. See McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-142 (1991); Preiser, 411

U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Tucker, 925 F.2d at 332.

Petitioner has filed the instant petition on a form apparently used in the United States

District Court for the District of Wyoming that is styled as a “Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.” (Doc. 1, p. 1). Thus, it appears that Petitioner recognizes that he

is raising a civil rights claim, not a proper habeas claim. Moreover, as explained above,

Petitioner is not questioning the fact, duration, or degree of his confinement. Rather, Petitioner is

challenging the conditions of his confinement, specifically, Respondent’s policies regarding use

of law library facilities by inmates confined to the Special Housing Unit. Petitioner is also

challenging Respondent’s system of paying inmates. However, habeas corpus relief is not

available to review of the conditions of a petitioner’s confinement such as those mentioned

above. See Crawford, 599 F.2d at 891-892. This is because condition of confinement claims are

not redressable through a habeas corpus petition. Id. at 891-892. The appropriate remedy for

such violations, if proven, would be a judicially mandated change in conditions and/or an award

of damages; however, release from confinement is the only remedy available through habeas

corpus. Id. at 892. Petitioner has asked for “assistance” on the issues of law library access and

payment for his work during May 2006. The Court, through habeas corpus, can give petitioner

neither remedy. Petitioner’s claims, because they concern the conditions of his confinement, are

Case 1:06-cv-01577-LJO-TAG Document 12 Filed 12/06/07 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

3

simply not cognizable on habeas corpus. As such, this action is not proper as a habeas corpus

petition.

Even were the Court to construe the petition as a proper habeas petition, the Court would

still have to recommend dismissal since Petitioner does not appear to have attempted to exhaust

his remedies. Regardless of whether this action is a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2241 or a complaint under Bivens, a federal prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies

before bringing his claims to federal court. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1019 (9th

Cir.1991) (Bivens action); Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir.1986) (§ 2241 habeas

petition). Federal prisons have a specific procedure in place by which prisoners can present

claims to prison officials. See Martinez, 804 F.2d at 571 (describing procedure for bringing

claims to prison administration); Lyle v. Sivley, 805 F.Supp. 755, 757 (D. Ariz. 1992) (same). 

The only evidence Petitioner has provided of his efforts to exhaust his claims is a copy of

a request made to Respondent for “law library time.” (Doc. 1, p. 10). The form contains a

handwritten notation, “Unable to bring law books to the SHU.” (Id.). This evidence is

inadequate to support a conclusion that Petitioner has fully exhausted his administrative

remedies. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

(Doc. 1), be DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle

Petitioner to habeas corpus relief. 

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, 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 twenty (20) 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 Recommendations.” 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 District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

Case 1:06-cv-01577-LJO-TAG Document 12 Filed 12/06/07 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

4

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 Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01577-LJO-TAG Document 12 Filed 12/06/07 Page 4 of 4