Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01117/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01117-0/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

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES D. MACIEL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES A. YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-1117 REC LJO HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS 

[Doc. #1]

On September 1, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court.

Petitioner raises several claims in his petition. In his first claim, he contends his medical disability

status was maliciously changed. In his second and third claims, he argues that prison authorities

wrongfully found him guilty of a rules violation. As a result, he was given “C” status which

precludes him from earning sentence credits. In his fourth and final claim, he contends the trial court

erred when it refused to appoint an attorney when Petitioner made a motion for appointment of

counsel. 

DISCUSSION

I. Preliminary Review of Petition

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

Case 1:05-cv-01117-OWW -LJO Document 5 Filed 10/04/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

from 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). 

II. Civil Rights Claim

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. 

In his first ground for relief, Petitioner claims prison staff have maliciously altered his

medical disability status. Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or

duration of that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief on this claim

and it must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue this claim, he must do so by way of a

civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

III. Unclear Claim

In his fourth ground for relief, Petitioner complains that the trial court erred in denying his

motion for the appointment of counsel. With respect to this ground, Petitioner fails to raise a

cognizable federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall 

entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to a judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

(emphasis added). See also, Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a

person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484

(1973).

Case 1:05-cv-01117-OWW -LJO Document 5 Filed 10/04/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

From the exhibits, it appears Petitioner’s motion for counsel was presented to the Lassen

County Superior Court; however, it is impossible to determine the manner of the proceeding in

which this motion was brought. Petitioner is serving the instant sentence as a result of a conviction

from the Norwalk County Superior Court; therefore, the action in Lassen County could not concern

the underlying conviction. In addition, the motion does not concern the hearing on the Rules

Violation Report. Thus, the claim must be dismissed. See Bernier v. Moore, 441 F.2d 395, 396 (1st

Cir.1971) ("Habeas corpus is a special proceeding to right wrongs, not a routine procedure to search

for them, nor a means of requiring the federal courts to review, as a matter of course, state

proceedings.")

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Grounds One and Four be DISMISSED from

the petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to

habeas corpus relief. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Robert E. Coyle, United

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

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

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: October 4, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01117-OWW -LJO Document 5 Filed 10/04/05 Page 3 of 3