Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00544/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00544-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corey Burgess
Petitioner
Hector Alfonzo Rios
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a 

second amended petition, which was filed on July 5, 2013. 

Petitioner has also requested that the Court sanction Respondent for 

delay in responding to a previous briefing order of the Court.

I. Background

Petitioner filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas 

corpus on May 3, 2012. Many of Petitioner’s numerous claims were 

dismissed in September 2012, but claims concerning due process 

COREY BURGESS,

 Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN HECTOR ALFONZO RIOS,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST 

FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. 55)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED PETITION 

(DOC. 49)

OBJECTIONS DEADLINE:

THIRTY (30) DAYS

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 6
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

violations in a prison disciplinary proceeding remained. Respondent 

filed an answer on November 19, 2012, and Petitioner filed a 

traverse on December 17, 2012. On July 5, 2013, Petitioner filed a 

motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which the Court 

considered to be a motion for leave to file an amended petition. 

After the Court issued briefing orders, Respondent filed opposition 

to Petitioner’s motion on October 21, 2013. Petitioner filed a 

reply on November 4, 2013. 

I. Order Denying Petitioner’s Request for Sanctions

Although Respondent delayed in responding to the Court’s 

briefing order, Respondent explained the delay and submitted 

briefing in compliance with the Court’s briefing directions. It 

does not appear that Petitioner suffered any prejudice from 

Respondent’s delay.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

II. Motion to Amend the Petition

A. Legal Standards

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus may be amended or 

supplemented as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to 

civil actions to the extent that the civil rules are not 

inconsistent with any statutory provisions or the rules governing 

section 2254 cases. 28 U.S.C. ' 2242; Rule 12 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 

(Habeas Rules). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) may be used to permit the 

petitioner to amend the petition. Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 

680, 696 n.7 (1993). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that a party 

may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one 

days after service of the pleading, a required responsive pleading, 

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/14/14 Page 2 of 6
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

or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier; in 

all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the 

opposing party=s written consent or the Court=s leave. The Court 

should freely grant leave when justice so requires. 

Factors to be considered when ruling on a motion to amend a 

habeas corpus petition include bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to 

the opposing party, futility of the amendment, and whether or not 

the party has previously amended his pleadings. Bonin v. Calderon, 

59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Amendment may be disallowed if 

the amendment would be futile, such as where the amended matter is 

duplicative or patently frivolous, or where the pleading presents no 

new facts but only new theories and provides no satisfactory 

explanation for failing fully to develop the contentions originally. 

Ibid. 

B. Analysis

In the motion and the reply, Petitioner seeks to add to the 

petition a claim or claims concerning Petitioner’s classification 

score and his custody level, which Petitioner alleges were 

improperly computed in violation of his rights. Petitioner seeks 

release to a residential drug abuse program and compensation. 

Petitioner’s request to add a claim or claims concerning his 

classification score challenge the conditions of his confinement. 

Petitioner alleges he originally alleged such a claim or claims. 

However, in an order filed and served on Petitioner on September 17, 

2012 (doc. 22), the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings 

and recommendations and dismissed Petitioner’s claims concerning 

allegedly retaliatory and discriminatory conditions of confinement 

without leave to amend and with directions to Petitioner that such 

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/14/14 Page 3 of 6
4

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

claims should be brought in a civil rights action pursuant to

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388

(1971). (Doc. 22; doc. 11 at pp. 6-7.) 

A federal court may not entertain an action over which it has 

no jurisdiction. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 

2000). 

Relief by way of a writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in 

custody under the authority of the United States if the petitioner 

can show that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or 

laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1) & 

(3). A habeas corpus action is the proper mechanism for a prisoner 

to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. Preiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 

330, 332 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding in a Bivens1 action that a claim 

that time spent serving a state sentence should have been credited 

against a federal sentence concerned the fact or duration of 

confinement and thus should have been construed as a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to ' 28 U.S.C. ' 2241, but to the 

extent the complaint sought damages for civil rights violations, it 

should be construed as a Bivens action); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 

890, 891B892 (9th Cir. 1979) (upholding dismissal of a petition 

challenging conditions of confinement and noting that the writ of 

habeas corpus has traditionally been limited to attacks upon the 

legality or duration of confinement); see, Greenhill v. Lappin, 376 

Fed. Appx. 757, 757-58 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (appropriate 

remedy for a federal prisoner's claim that relates to the conditions 

 

1

The reference is to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/14/14 Page 4 of 6
5

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

of his confinement is a civil rights action under Bivens; but see, 

Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989) (habeas 

corpus is available pursuant to § 2241 for claims concerning denial 

of good time credits from subjection to greater restrictions of 

liberty, such as disciplinary segregation, without due process of 

law); Cardenas v. Adler, 2010 WL 2180378 (No.1:09-cv-00831-AWI-JLTHC, May 28, 2010) (petitioner's challenge to the constitutionality 

of the sanction of disciplinary segregation and his claim that the 

disciplinary proceedings were the product of retaliation by prison 

staff were cognizable in a habeas proceeding pursuant to ' 2241).

Claims concerning various prison conditions brought pursuant to 

' 2241 have been dismissed in this district for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction with indications that an action pursuant to 

Bivens is appropriate. See, e.g., Dyson v. Rios, 2010 WL 3516358, 

*3 (E.D.Cal. Sept. 2, 2010) (a claim challenging placement in a 

special management housing unit in connection with a disciplinary 

violation); Burnette v. Smith, 2009 WL 667199 at *1 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 

13, 2009) (a petition seeking a transfer and prevention of 

retaliation by prison staff); Evans v. U.S. Penitentiary, 2007 WL 

4212339 at *1 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 27, 2007) (claims brought pursuant to '

2241 regarding a transfer and inadequate medical care).

Here, the claims Petitioner seeks to add to the petition

concern the conditions of his confinement and do not bear a 

relationship to the legality or duration of his confinement. 

Because these claims relate solely to the conditions of his 

confinement, the Court lacks habeas corpus jurisdiction over the 

claims pursuant to § 2241. It would thus be futile for Petitioner 

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/14/14 Page 5 of 6
6

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

to file a second amended petition raising Petitioner’s conditions 

claims. 

Accordingly, it will be recommended that Petitioner’s motion 

for leave to file a third amended petition be denied.

III. Recommendations

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s motion for 

leave to file a second amended petition be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United 

States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern 

District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served 

with a copy, any party may file written objections with the Court 

and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 

captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s Findings and 

Recommendations.@ Replies to the objections shall be served and 

filed within fourteen (14) days (plus three (3) days if served by 

mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then review 

the Magistrate Judge=s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(C). 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s 

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/14/14 Page 6 of 6