Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02737/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02737-0/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONNOR ALBERT DAVIS,

Petitioner,

v.

CDCR et al.,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-2737 DAD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a county jail inmate 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).

PRELIMINARY SCREENING

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 

petition if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases. See also O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 

F.2d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 1983). The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court 

may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus at several stages of a case, including “summary 

Case 2:14-cv-02737-MCE-DAD Document 5 Filed 03/23/15 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

2

dismissal under Rule 4; a dismissal pursuant to a motion by the respondent; a dismissal after the 

answer and petition are considered; or a dismissal after consideration of the pleadings and an 

expanded record.” 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner commenced this action by filing a form petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is difficult to decipher, but it is apparent from the 

allegations contained therein that petitioner does not seek to challenge an underlying state court 

conviction and sentence. Instead, petitioner complains in his petition about various conditions of 

his confinement at the Colusa County Jail, such as the jail’s lavatory conditions, canteen prices, 

and the medical care provided. (Pet. at 3 & Attach.)

ANALYSIS

The court will recommend that the instant habeas petition be dismissed because petitioner 

has failed to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. Petitioner is advised that habeas 

corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to challenge the fact or 

duration of his confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Here, 

petitioner does not challenge the legality of his conviction, a parole proceeding, or other 

adjudication that has led to his current incarceration. Instead, he apparently seeks to challenge the 

conditions of his confinement. Since this court can discern no manner in which petitioner could 

cure the defects in the allegations of his petition seeking federal habeas relief, the court will 

recommend that the pending petition be summarily dismissed without prejudice to petitioner’s 

filing a civil rights action.

1

 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to 

this action.

 

1

 A civil rights action is the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to challenge the conditions 

of his confinement. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Case 2:14-cv-02737-MCE-DAD Document 5 Filed 03/23/15 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

3

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) be dismissed without

prejudice to petitioner’s filing of a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and

2. This action be closed. 

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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner 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 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). 

In any objections he elects to file, petitioner may address whether a certificate of 

appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 

11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant).

Dated: March 23, 2015

DAD:9

davi2737.156

Case 2:14-cv-02737-MCE-DAD Document 5 Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 3