Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01860/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01860-1/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

TIMOTHY BRYAN BROOKS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-1860 FCD PAN P

vs.

KATHY PROSPER, et al.,

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 5, 2005, he filed a document styled, “Motion to order F.B.I.

investigation into obvious Retaliatory acts and Federal Charges of Malicious Prosecution Against

Petitioner, Request for Federal Court Ordered Transfer to Folsom Ranch Level 1 by December

16, 2005.” On December 9, 2005, plaintiff filed a document styled, “Motion (Emergency) for

Felony Federal Charges Filed Against C.D.C. and Agents Named Herein.” On February 8, 2006,

respondent filed a response.

Petitioner alleges he was moved to Administrative Segregation in retaliation for

his resort to the federal courts for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He

asserts that insofar as he has enemies in California Correction Center, he should be transferred to

Folsom State Prison as an alternative to Administrative Segregation.

Case 2:03-cv-01860-FCD-EFB Document 58 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Respondent demonstrates petitioner was moved to Administrative Segregation to

protect petitioner from enemies and in the interest of prison security. Petitioner is not entitled to

select the location of his confinement. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976); Olim v.

Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-49 (1983), 

The court finds moving petitioner was not retaliatory. See Rhodes v. Robinson,

408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005).

Petitioner asserts he has been denied sufficient blankets and that “very cold air is

blown into the cells 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.” The court cannot adjudicate such a claim on

habeas. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643-46 (2004); see also Preiser v. Rodriguez,

411 U.S. 475, 498-500 (1973). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s December 5,

2005, motion for an F.B.I. investigation and federal charges of malicious prosecution and

December 9, 2005, motion for felony charges be denied.

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 20 days

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

objections. 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: April 24, 2006.

/004

\broo1860.f&r dny rerquest

Case 2:03-cv-01860-FCD-EFB Document 58 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 2