Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02462/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02462-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CARL KELLY,

Petitioner,

v.

GENA JONES,

Respondent.

Case No. 2:24-cv-02462-JDP (HC)

ORDER

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS 

ACTION, FINDING THAT THE PETITION 

DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE 

CLAIM AND GRANTING LEAVE TO 

AMEND

ECF No. 1

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE 

DENIED

ECF No. 3

Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254. ECF No. 1. It appears, 

however, that the claims raised therein do not attack the validity of his conviction and, instead, 

should be brought under section 1983. I will grant petitioner leave to amend to indicate what type 

of case he wants to bring. Depending on that decision, petitioner must also pay the filing fee 

associated with the action he wishes to pursue. The amount of the filing fee owed differs 

depending on whether a habeas petition or a section 1983 action is filed. I will also recommend 

that petitioner’s motion for preliminary injunction be denied for the reasons stated below.

Case 2:24-cv-02462-KJM-JDP Document 4 Filed 09/17/24 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

The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 

the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 

Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Petitioner filed this action on a habeas form, but his allegations concern the misconduct of 

prison guards at the California Health Care Facility in July 2024. ECF No. 1 at 3. As such, I 

cannot tell what petitioner’s intention is. If he wishes to attack the sufficiency of his conviction, 

which allegedly occurred in 1996, id. at 2, then he must describe why that conviction is 

insufficient and also why an attack on it is timely. By contrast, if petitioner wishes to bring a 

section 1983 claim for violation of his constitutional rights, he must specifically identify what 

rights were violated and file his complaint on a section 1983 form. As such, I will give petitioner 

leave to amend to confirm what type of case he wishes to purse.

I will recommend that petitioner’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. As an 

initial matter, the uncertainty created by petitioner’s claims and his use of the habeas form 

preclude a finding that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20

(2008) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 

the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”). Neither has 

plaintiff discussed the other Winter factors. He may refile his motion for preliminary injunction 

once he has identified the type of action he wishes to pursue, discussing the foregoing factors in 

that context.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action.

2. The Clerk of Court shall send petitioner a habeas form and a section 1983 form with 

this order. Plaintiff must return only one of them, depending on the type of action he wishes to 

pursue. 

3. The Clerk of Court shall also send petitioner an IFP application form. Petitioner must 

Case 2:24-cv-02462-KJM-JDP Document 4 Filed 09/17/24 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

submit either the completed application or the filing fee associated with whatever action he 

chooses to pursue.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion for preliminary injunction, ECF 

No. 3, be DENIED without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

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

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02462-KJM-JDP Document 4 Filed 09/17/24 Page 3 of 3