Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00659/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00659-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY E. KENDALL,

Petitioner,

v.

CYNTHIA TAMPKINS,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT COURT DISMISS CLAIMS 1, 2, 3, 

AND 4 FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 

(Doc. 1) 

SCREENING ORDER

Petitioner, Leroy E. Kendall, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserts five claims: (1) unconstitutionally crowded 

living conditions; (2) unconstitutional lack of healthcare; (3) unconstitutionally poor health care; (4) 

unconstitutional assignment of state prisoners to county jails; and (5) newly discovered evidence that 

the district attorney coached the victim to lie during Petitioner’s trial. Because claims one through 

four concern conditions of confinement, which must be presented in a complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 1983, and are not cognizable in a habeas petition, the undersigned recommends that the Court 

dismiss those claims and permit the petition for writ of habeas corpus to proceed only on claim five.

I. Preliminary Screening

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly 

appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules 

Case 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). A petition 

for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable 

claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th

Cir. 1971).

II. Conditions of Confinement

A federal petition for writ of habeas corpus concerns whether a petitioner is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). "Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a 

state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or 

speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of § 1983." Preiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-89 (1973). Challenges to the conditions of prison life are properly 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 142 (1991). A plaintiff may 

not seek both types of relief in a single action. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994); 

Preiser, 411 U.S. at 498-99 n. 15; Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990); Advisory 

Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because the first four 

claims, alleging prison overcrowding, the availability and quality of health care, and the transfer of 

inmates from state prison to county jails, concern the conditions of the Petitioner’s confinement, they 

must be advanced in a § 1983 complaint, not a habeas petition. 

III. Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district 

court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 

appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of 

appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

Case 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 4
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

3

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or 

trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test 

the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention 

complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issues or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability "if 

jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that 

jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Although the 

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate "something more than 

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 

338.

Reasonable jurists would not find the Court's determination that Petitioner is not entitled to 

pursue § 1983 conditions-of-confinement claims in a habeas petition to be debatable, wrong, or 

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Accordingly, the Court should decline to issue a 

certificate of appealability.

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

Because claims one through four of the petition concern conditions of Petitioner’s 

confinement, those claims are not cognizable in a petition for writ of habeas corpus but must be 

alleged in a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The undersigned recommends that the Court 

Case 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

dismiss those claims without prejudice to Petitioner’s pursuing them in a separate action. Because 

claim five states a cognizable habeas claim, the petition should proceed on claim five only. The 

Court should deny a certificate of appealability.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C ' 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Petitioner may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s Findings and 

Recommendations.@ Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

constitute waiver of the right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 

834, 839 ((9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 06/01/16 Page 4 of 4