Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01794/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01794-0/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

EDWARD ONTIVEROS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-05-1794 FCD KJM P

vs.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Case 2:05-cv-01794-FCD-KJM Document 6 Filed 01/17/06 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

2

Plaintiff alleges that even though he was found not guilty of a rules violation, he

was denied reinstatement to his job and/or his wage scale. He also claims he was denied certain

due process rights during the hearings and the allegations in the rules violation report were false.

Because petitioner was found not guilty of the rules violation and thus did not lose

behavorial credits, his continued confinement does not violate the federal constitution, a

prerequisite for federal habeas corpus relief. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). 

To the extent petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, federal habeas relief is

not available. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.1991) (habeas corpus petition is proper

method to challenge legality or duration of confinement, but civil rights action is proper method

of challenging conditions of confinement). Accordingly, it is appropriate to dismiss this action

without issuing an order to show cause. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 298-

99 (1969).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Petitioner’s September 8, 2005 request for the appointment of counsel is

denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a writ of

habeas corpus be dismissed.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01794-FCD-KJM Document 6 Filed 01/17/06 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

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. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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).

DATED: January 17, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

onti1794.156

Case 2:05-cv-01794-FCD-KJM Document 6 Filed 01/17/06 Page 3 of 3