Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00026/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00026-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Dibble
Petitioner
State of California
Respondent

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD DIBBLE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-0026 CKD P

ORDER

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to have all matters in this action 

before a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Petitioner requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Examination of the in forma 

pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the 

application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 

petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief.

Petitioner asserts he has been ordered to serve a sentence of imprisonment in the 

California Department of Corrections. However, because of a change in state law, he is serving 

the remainder of his sentence in the Sacramento County Jail. He complains that he is not able to 

Case 2:16-cv-00026-CKD Document 8 Filed 02/29/16 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

earn the same amount of good conduct sentence credits at the Sacramento County Jail as he could 

in a CDCR facility. There are two problems with petitioner’s claim. First, petitioner does not 

have a right arising under federal law to earn good conduct sentence credits and he fails to allege 

facts suggesting any of the federal rights he does have are being violated. Second, petitioner fails 

to present a claim upon which this court can grant habeas relief because he challenges neither the 

fact that he is confined nor the actual duration of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 

574 (9th Cir. 1991). In light of the foregoing, this action will be summarily dismissed.1 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed;

3. This case is closed; and

4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 

2253.

Dated: February 29, 2016

1

dibb0609.100

 

1

 To the extent plaintiff seeks to challenge conditions of his confinement, and has a basis to do 

so under the Constitution or other federal law, he could file a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff is cautioned however, that if he initiates a § 1983 action, he will have to pay the $350 

filing fee, although he will be allowed to pay it in installments.

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00026-CKD Document 8 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 2