Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01950/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01950-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD L. ARMSTRONG, SR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1950 LKK DAD P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner confined in High Desert State Prison, which is

located in Lassen County, California. Petitioner has filed a handwritten document titled “Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof.” 

The document is captioned for filing in “Superior Court of the State of California County of

Lassen.” Attached to the handwritten document is a state habeas petition form captioned for

filing in “Lassen County Superior Court.”

In his state petition, petitioner indicates that he is challenging conditions of

confinement at the state prison. Petitioner seeks money damages for deliberate indifference to

serious medical needs. He identifies the responsible employees as the warden, three doctors, and

a dentist. Intermingled with petitioner’s claims concerning conditions of confinement are

assertions concerning ineffective assistance of counsel, double jeopardy, and “fruit doctrine.”

Case 2:06-cv-01950-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 09/08/06 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

 It is evident from the allegations of the state habeas petition filed in this case that

1

petitioner has not yet exhausted available state court remedies. 

2

Petitioner indicates that he has filed an appeal from a 2005 conviction and that the appeal is

pending in the California Court of Appeal’s Third Appellate District. 

A federal court may not entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought by a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court unless the petition has been brought

“on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Federal habeas corpus relief is available only for

challenges to the duration or legality of a prisoner’s confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 500 (1973). A state prisoner who seeks to challenge unconstitutional conditions of

confinement may attack those conditions in federal court by presenting his claims in a civil rights

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In the present case, it appears that petitioner’s state habeas petition has been sent

to the federal court in error. In any event, this case must be dismissed. To the extent that

petitioner complains of conditions of confinement, he may do so in federal court only in a civil

rights action. The court’s own records reveal that petitioner previously filed a civil rights action

concerning his medical care at High Desert State Prison and that the action is pending. See

Armstrong v. Runnels, et al., case No. CIV S-06-0034 DFL GGH PC (E.D. Cal. 2006). To the

extent that petitioner challenges his 2005 conviction, the court’s own records reveal that

petitioner previously filed a federal habeas action concerning that conviction. See Armstrong v.

Pope, case No. CIV S-05-2371 LKK DAD HC (E.D. Cal. 2005). The undersigned has

recommended that case No. CIV S-05-2371 be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust

available state court remedies. The findings and recommendations are currently pending before

the district judge assigned to case No. CIV S-05-2371.1

This action should be dismissed because petitioner’s claims concerning the

conditions of his confinement fail to state a basis for federal habeas corpus relief. See Rule 4,

Case 2:06-cv-01950-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 09/08/06 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

3

Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases (“If it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any

exhibits attached to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge

shall make an order for its summary dismissal . . . .”). Petitioner’s claims concerning his 2005

conviction are duplicative of a previously filed habeas case that is still pending. Under these

circumstances, petitioner’s request for declaration of indigency will be disregarded, and

petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s August 31, 2006 request for appointment of counsel is denied;

2. Petitioner’s August 31, 2006 declaration of indigency is disregarded; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice as

duplicative of other actions pending in this court.

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 8, 2006.

DAD:13

arms1950.156

Case 2:06-cv-01950-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 09/08/06 Page 3 of 3