Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02370/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02370-0/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

DANA DEMETRIUS BAIRFIELD, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2370 GEB DAD P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF

DEPARTMENT, ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, an inmate confined in the Solano County Jail, has filed a petition for

writ of habeas corpus on a form used in the California state courts. Petitioner has not paid the

filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

On the state form, petitioner indicates that he is challenging jail or prison

conditions and that he is currently in jail awaiting trial on drug charges. Petitioner alleges that he

was assaulted on April 13, 2006, by officers that work at the jail. Petitioner alleges that the

officers violated his civil rights. Petitioner provides copies of his state tort claim and the notice

of rejection of that claim. In an attachment dated October 20, 2006, petitioner requests six

million dollars in damages.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02370-GEB-DAD Document 3 Filed 11/02/06 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

A federal district court cannot entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus

brought by a person in custody pursuant to state authority unless the habeas petition has been

brought on the ground that the petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or

treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Federal habeas 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).

The habeas petition filed by the petitioner in this case must be dismissed because

it does not state a basis for federal habeas corpus relief. See Rule 4, 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 . . . .”). Rule 4 “‘explicitly allows a district court to dismiss summarily the

petition on the merits when no claim for relief is stated.’” O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418,

420 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 1983)).

The undersigned will recommend that the district judge dismiss this habeas action

without prejudice to the filing of a civil rights complaint. The Clerk will be directed to provide

petitioner with a civil rights complaint form and the appropriate in forma pauperis application

form. If petitioner chooses to file a civil rights complaint, his complaint and in forma pauperis

application must be submitted for filing as a new action. The case number assigned to this

habeas case should not be included on the civil rights complaint, as a new case must be opened

and a new case number will be assigned.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send

petitioner a civil rights complaint form and the in forma pauperis application used in civil rights

actions in this district; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice because

it plainly appears from the face of the habeas petition that petitioner is not entitled to federal

habeas corpus relief.

Case 2:06-cv-02370-GEB-DAD Document 3 Filed 11/02/06 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. 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: November 1, 2006.

DAD:13

bair2370.156

Case 2:06-cv-02370-GEB-DAD Document 3 Filed 11/02/06 Page 3 of 3