Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00986-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
G. Rodregez
Respondent
DeMarquis Sillemon
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DeMARQUIS SILLEMON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

G. RODREGEZ, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:07-CV-0986-LJO WMW HC

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

Petitioner is a state prison proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas

corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the

ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to

challenge “the very fact or duration of his confinement,” and where “the relief he seeks is a

determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that

imprisonment.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). In contrast, a civil rights

Case 1:07-cv-00986-LJO-WMW Document 4 Filed 11/08/07 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

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the

conditions of that confinement. In this case, Petitioner is not challenging his conviction, but

rather is challenging prison conditions. Specifically, Petitioner is challenging the deprivation

of personal property. Accordingly, the proper vehicle for Petitioner to pursue his claims is

through a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to

Petitioner’s right to file an appropriate civil rights action; and 

2) The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00986-LJO-WMW Document 4 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 2