Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01152/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01152-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL CRAIG COURTOIS,

Petitioner,

v.

C.D.C., et al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-1152 OWW SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING AMENDED PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

[Doc. 20]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 12, 2005. On

February 17, 2006, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that

Petitioner’s claim challenging his conviction arising from Humboldt County Superior Court be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and it was recommended that Petitioner be granted leave to

amend the petition to provide sufficient factual allegations regarding the challenge to the denial

of a parole hearing. (Court Doc. 12.) The Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full

on April 7, 2006, and Petitioner was directed to file an amended petition within thirty days from

the date of service of that order. (Court Doc. 16.) Petitioner failed to file an amended petition;

therefore, on June 5, 2006, Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the action were issued. 

(Court Doc. 17.) Petitioner filed objections on June 12, 2006. (Court Doc. 18.) On July 26,

2006, the Court vacated the Findings and Recommendations issued June 5, 2006, and directed

Case 1:05-cv-01152-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 08/23/06 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

Petitioner to file an amended petition within thirty days from the date of service. (Court Doc.

19.) Petitioner filed an amended petition on August 10, 2006. (Court Doc. 20.)

In his amended petition, Petitioner claims that he has been denied use of the D-yard, law

library, and the prison staff are corrupt. Petitioner further claims that he has been denied

incoming and outgoing mail. (Amd. Pet. at 4-6.) Petitioner seeks relief in the form of “transfer

to San Quentin state prison reception. . . .” (Amd. Pet. at 7.) 

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." 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 (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. 

Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, which as stated above is not

cognizable via § 2254. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition

must be dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas

corpus be DISMISSED because it does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas

corpus relief. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Case 1:05-cv-01152-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 08/23/06 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

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 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 22, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01152-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 08/23/06 Page 3 of 3