Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALLEN YOCOM,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-NONE-HBK

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR RELIEF BASED ON HIS CONDITIONS 

OF CONFINEMENT

(Doc. No. 31)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR EMERGENCY EVIDENTIARY 

HEARING

(Doc. No. 31)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND 

PLEADINGS TO APPROPRIATE 

INSTITUTIONAL OFFICIAL

(Doc. No. 31)

Petitioner Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner has pending a pro se petition for writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2018 underlying state court conviction. 

(Doc. No. 1). Before the court is Petitioner’s pleading titled “emergency motions for 

teleconference hearing,” “emergency” motion “to reconsider the show cause order of response on 

respondents,” and motion for “emergency evidentiary hearing” filed May 21, 2021. (Doc. No. 

31). Due to the titling of the pleading as an “emergency” and petitioner’s claim that he is being 

denied “lifesaving care,” the court immediately undertook a review of the pleading. 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 39 Filed 05/25/21 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

Petitioner, in his one-page motion, states that he is in critical condition and may die before 

the petition is fully briefed under this court’s briefing schedule at Doc. No. 23. (Doc. No. 31). 

Petitioner states that he is “being denied health care for life threatening conditions” at the Tulare 

County jail. (Id.). The court regularly receives pro se notices from confined persons alleging 

suicide, danger of death, or imminent serious physical harm to themselves or to others. In an 

abundance of caution, the court provides notice of such allegations to the appropriate state or 

federal officials for whatever action those officials deem appropriate. The notice provided to 

officials should not be construed as a ruling on the merits of the allegations or relief requested 

in the pleading.

With regards to Petitioner’s requests for relief based on the conditions of his confinement, 

this court has previously advised him that these allegations are not proper in his pending habeas 

action and should be raised in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights complaint. See Preiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973); (Doc. Nos. 8, 12, 33). The court has thrice provided 

Petitioner with a § 1983 complaint form for this purpose. To the extent Petitioner wishes to seek 

relief from the conditions of confinement or the alleged failure to provide him with medical care, 

he should do so through a properly filed § 1983 complaint. 

To the extent Petitioner seeks a teleconference and an emergency evidentiary hearing, his 

motions are denied for the reasons stated in the court’s previous orders denying Petitioner’s 

motions for evidentiary hearings. (Doc. Nos. 8, 20, 33). Evidentiary hearings are granted only 

under limited circumstances in habeas proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii). Because 

no response to the petition has yet been filed, it is premature to hold a teleconference or an

evidentiary hearing. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, R. 8(a). 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The clerk shall forward a copy of Petitioner’s motion (Doc. No. 31) which contains 

allegations of danger of death or imminent physical harm by a confined person to the 

appropriate officials at the Tulare County jail for handling as officials deem 

appropriate.

2. The clerk shall indicate on the docket the name of the official(s) to whom notice was 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 39 Filed 05/25/21 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

provided and upon receipt the official shall confirm receipt thereof.

3. Neither this order nor notice provided to officials should not be construed as a ruling 

on the merits of the allegations or relief requested in the pleading but is provided for 

informational purposes and handling as they deem appropriate. 

4. Petitioner’s motions for a teleconference and an evidentiary hearing (Doc. No. 31) are

denied. Petitioner is advised to refrain from seeking a hearing until such a time as this 

matter is fully briefed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2021 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 39 Filed 05/25/21 Page 3 of 3