Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01511/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01511-0/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

ROBERT ALAN HECKER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1511 FCD GGH P

vs.

SUE HUBBARD, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner states as the sole ground of his petition the following: “denial of right to

appeal.” Petition, p. 4. In support of that putative ground, petitioner states that the petition

should be considered in conjunction with Case No. CIV S-06-1115 LKK DAD P, an action

Case 2:07-cv-01511-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 12/14/07 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

 Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 1

626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126 (1981).

2

brought by plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court takes judicial notice that judgment 1

in that case was entered prior to the filing of the instant habeas, and that that civil rights case was

dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. See Order, filed 7/6/07, Case No. CIV S-06-

1115 LKK DAD P. That matter appears to be on appeal at this time.

It is unclear in petitioner’s present filing precisely what petitioner is challenging. 

Petitioner references a number of exhibits which evidently speak to evaluations of petitioner’s

mental condition. Petitioner claims herein that he was placed in administrative segregation for

displaying symptoms of mental disorder in violation of Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282,

1320 (E.D. Cal. 1995). Petition, p. 5. Petitioner speaks of having been subjected to a

“mistaken” transfer and of having been the subject of several assaults. Petition, pp. 5-6.

Petitioner seeks, at least in part, restoration of 35 days half-time credits, and to have his original

December 22, 2009, release date restored.

Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related

to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2254,

and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. 

1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1983. Challenges to the validity of

any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the

province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,

500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); requests for relief

turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a 

1983 action. 

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749, 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004) (per curiam).

Although petitioner appears to be seeking, at least in part, a remedy available only

via a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, that is, restoration of good time

credits, as noted, it is unclear precisely what he is challenging. If he is claiming a condition of

his confinement is violating his constitutional rights, he must proceed in an action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

The petition will be dismissed with leave granted to file an amended petition

Case 2:07-cv-01511-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 12/14/07 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

within thirty days. Petitioner is directed to make use of the habeas application form to be

provided with this order and to set forth concisely the judgment, disciplinary action or other

decision he is challenging and the relief he is requesting.

Accordingly, IT IS ODERED that:

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

2. The petition is dismissed with leave granted to file an amended petition within

thirty days of the filed date of this order, using the form provided herewith; failure to file an

amended petition will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form for filing

a habeas petition.

DATED: 12/13/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

heck1511.dis

Case 2:07-cv-01511-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 3