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

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, LAURA 

ELDRIDGE, AND ATTORNEY 

GENERAL,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-HBK

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR EMERGENCY EVIDENTIARY 

HEARING

(Doc. No. 6)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND 

PETITIONER § 1983 COMPLAINT FORM

Petitioner Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Before the court is 

petitioner’s motion for emergency evidentiary hearing. (Doc. No. 6). 

1. Evidentiary Hearing

An evidentiary hearing in a habeas proceeding is granted only under limited 

circumstances. 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 an evidentiary hearing. See Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases, R. 8(a). Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. No. 6) is premature.

2. Civil Rights Claim

Although titled as seeking an emergency evidentiary hearing, petitioner alleges that prison 

officials are torturing him, have denied him access to health care, and are treating him cruelly and 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 8 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 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

2

inhumanely. (Doc. No. 6 at 1-2). Such claims turn on petitioner’s conditions of confinement and 

are inappropriate on habeas review. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F. 2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting 

purpose of habeas is to challenge “legality or duration” of a petitioner’s incarceration, quoting 

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)). Instead, “a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 action is a 

proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of 

his prison life.” Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. Therefore, to the extent petitioner wishes to challenge

his conditions of confinement, he should do so in a § 1983 civil rights action.1

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion for emergency evidentiary hearing (Doc. No. 6) is denied. 

2. The clerk of court is directed to provide petitioner with a blank § 1983 civil rights 

complaint form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2021 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 The court, by separate order, has directed the clerk of court to notify the appropriate prison 

officials of petitioner’s claims.

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 8 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 2