Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00569/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00569-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
G-4-S Security
Respondent
Olivia Magallanes-Castro
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLIVIA MAGALLANES-CASTRO, No. 2:14-CV-0569-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

G-4-S SECURITY,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for

a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1).

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary

dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f 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.” In the

instant case, it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Petitioner states that

she was injured when she was being transported to court for an immigration hearing. Petitioner

adds: “We crashed. This is negligence on his part.” Given the entirety of petitioner’s claim, it is

clear that petitioner seeks damages for injuries she claims were caused due to the negligence of

1

Case 2:14-cv-00569-CMK Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 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

the named respondent, G-4-S Security. 

A cognizable habeas corpus claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 arises when a state

prisoner challenges the legality of his custody – either the fact of confinement or the duration of

confinement – and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or

immediate release. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v.

Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586

(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). In the instant case, petitioner alleges facts consistent with a state

law tort claim based on negligence. Because the facts alleged in this case do not relate to the fact

or duration of petitioner’s confinement, the matter is not the proper subject of a petitioner under

§ 2254. 

Based on the foregoing, petitioner is required to show cause in writing, within 30

days of the date of this order, why his petition for a writ of habeas corpus should not be

summarily dismissed. Petitioner is warned that failure to respond to this order may result in

dismissal of the petition the reasons outlined above, as well as for failure to prosecute and

comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 10, 2014

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:14-cv-00569-CMK Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 2 of 2