Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01093/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01093-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN F. NABONNE,

Petitioner, CV F 05 1093 OWW WMW HC

vs. FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE 

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

WARDEN, NORTH KERN STATE

PRISON,

Respondent.

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 in the district court." 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).

Case 1:05-cv-01093-OWW -WMW Document 4 Filed 11/07/05 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

2

“According to traditional interpretation, the writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon

the legality or duration of confinement.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979)

citing, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-86 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to

Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner’s allegations, however, do not

make such attacks. Petitioner instead alleges inadequate medical care that violates his rights

under the Eighth Amendment. Petitioner’s claims challenge the conditions of his

confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Thus, the court finds that his

claims are not appropriate for habeas corpus relief. Challenges to the conditions of

confinement are more appropriately raised in civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d at 891-

92 (9th Cir. 1979).

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to file an appropriate civil rights action

raising the same claims raised in the present petition.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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.

Case 1:05-cv-01093-OWW -WMW Document 4 Filed 11/07/05 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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01093-OWW -WMW Document 4 Filed 11/07/05 Page 3 of 3