Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01293/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01293-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is serving an 11-year sentence on an unspecified 2016 conviction. Petitioner does 

not challenge his conviction. Rather, he challenges the conditions of his pretrial detention. Because 

the Court is without jurisdiction to consider his claims in a habeas corpus action, the Court will 

recommend that the petition be dismissed. 

I. DISCUSSION

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 from 

the face of 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). 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 

MONICO J. QUIROGA, III,

 Petitioner,

v.

KERN COUNTY SHERIFFS MEDICAL 

SERVICE,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01293-JLT (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF HABEAS 

JURISDICTION (Doc. 1)

[TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE]

Case 1:16-cv-01293-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

(9th Cir. 1991), see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[H]abeas jurisdiction is 

absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not 

necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence”). However, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of confinement. McCarthy v. 

Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991). 

In this case, Petitioner does not challenge his underlying conviction. Instead he challenges the 

conditions of his confinement while he was a pretrial detainee in custody of the Kern County Sheriff’s

Department at the Kern County Jail. He complains he was denied adequate medical care while housed 

as a pretrial detainee. He alleges he was denied medical visits to the facility doctor by Kern County 

Sheriff Deputy L. Porter. He asserts that medical staff members were negligent and deliberately 

indifferent in providing medical care, and claims that he was subjected to excessive delay in receiving 

treatment. He claims he was without medication for a month and made to suffer pain and discomfort 

while being denied visits to his doctor. He seeks money damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory 

judgment. 

Petitioner is thus challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that 

confinement. No relief requested by Petitioner in his petition would affect the fact or duration of 

Petitioner’s sentence. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition 

must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, he must file a civil rights complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On the other hand, Petitioner raised these same claims in case number 

1:15-cv-01202 LJO MJS and the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim on August 18, 

2016 (Doc. 23). His relief is to appeal that determination.

II. ORDER

The Court directs the Clerk of Court is to assign a District Judge to this case.

III. RECOMMENDATION

The Court RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus petition be DISMISSED for Petitioner’s 

failure to state any cognizable federal habeas claims.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Case 1:16-cv-01293-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 3
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

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

twenty-one days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. 

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636 (b)(1)(C). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01293-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 3