Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00930/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00930-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derral Adams
Respondent
Jerry Bailey
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY BAILEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

DERRAL ADAMS, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:10-cv—00930-SKO-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

AND DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR FEDERAL INJUNCTION AND

TRANSFER (Doc. 6) 

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO MAIL

A CIVIL RIGHTS FORM TO PETITIONER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner has consented to

the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge to conduct

all further proceedings in the case, including the entry of final

judgment, by manifesting consent in a signed writing filed by

Petitioner on June 3, 2010 (doc. 5). Pending before the Court is

Petitioner’s petition, which was filed in this Court on May 25,

2010. The petition concerns a claim of a violation of due

1

Case 1:10-cv-00930-SKO Document 7 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 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

process of law suffered when Petitioner submitted to prison

authorities two “602" forms relating to administrative appeals,

and the prison authorities’ response to Petitioner’s appeals was

untimely. (Pet. 7-9, 16-17.) Petitioner has also filed a motion

for injunctive relief concerning the conditions of his

confinement. (Doc. 6.) 

I. Screening the Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make

a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....”

Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.

1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.

1990). Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all

grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts

supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested. 

Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must

state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional

error. Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption;

O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v.

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977)). Allegations in a petition

that are vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to

summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th

Cir. 1990).

Further, the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas

corpus either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to

2

Case 1:10-cv-00930-SKO Document 7 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 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

the respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the

petition has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule

8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43

(9th Cir. 2001).

II. Conditions of Confinement 

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas

corpus 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. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the

correct method for a prisoner to challenge the legality or

duration of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574

(9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485

(1973)); Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 1, 1976

Adoption. 

In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the

conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S.

136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at

574; Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 1, 1976 Adoption.

In this case, Petitioner alleges that the custodial

institution’s response to his grievances was untimely and thus

was a denial of his right to due process of law. Petitioner’s

allegations concern only the conditions of his confinement. 

Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and

this petition must be dismissed. 

Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, he must do so

by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Clerk will be directed to send an appropriate form complaint

3

Case 1:10-cv-00930-SKO Document 7 Filed 07/28/10 Page 3 of 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 Petitioner.

III. Motions for Federal Injunction and Federal Custody

 Transfer 

On June 14, 2010, Petitioner filed motions seeking an

injunction with respect to the conditions in his custodial

institution and a transfer to a different institution. (Doc. 6.) 

Petitioner moves for immediate relief and refers generally,

without specification of any circumstantial details, to shutting

down the toilet main, putting laxatives in the feeding tray, and

a three-week delay in receipt of mail after the postmarked date. 

It is established that relief by way of a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 extends to a prisoner who

shows that the custody violates the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 

Because in the motions Petitioner seeks to challenge the

conditions of his confinement, and not the legality or duration

of his confinement, these particular claims are cognizable in a

civil rights action rather than a petition for writ of habeas

corpus. 

In summary, considering the nature of the relief requested,

and in view of the Court’s determination to dismiss the action as

appropriately brought as a civil rights suit concerning

conditions instead of as a petition for writ of habeas corpus,

the motions will be denied as moot. 

IV. Certificate of Appealability

Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals

from the final order in a habeas proceeding in which the

4

Case 1:10-cv-00930-SKO Document 7 Filed 07/28/10 Page 4 of 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

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state

court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 336 (2003). A certificate of appealability may issue

only if the applicant makes a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, a

petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether

the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or

that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement

to proceed further. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 336

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). A

certificate should issue if the Petitioner shows that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a

valid claim for the denial of a constitutional right or that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in any procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). In determining this issue, a court

conducts an overview of the claims in the habeas petition,

generally assesses their merits, and determines whether the

resolution was debatable among jurists of reason or wrong. Id. 

It is necessary for an applicant to show more than an absence of

frivolity or the existence of mere good faith; however, it is not

necessary for an applicant to show that the appeal will succeed. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 338. 

A district court must issue or deny a certificate of

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the

applicant. Habeas Rule 11(a). 

Here, because Petitioner’s claims relate only to conditions

of confinement, jurists of reason would not find it debatable

5

Case 1:10-cv-00930-SKO Document 7 Filed 07/28/10 Page 5 of 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

whether the Court was correct in its ruling. Accordingly,

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right, and the Court declines to issue a

certificate of appealability. 

V. Disposition

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED

without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to file a civil rights

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983; and

2) Petitioner’s motions for federal injunction and transfer

are DENIED as moot; and 

3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case because

this order terminates the action in its entirety; and

4) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of

appealability; and

5) The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail to Petitioner a form for

filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a

person in custody.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 1:10-cv-00930-SKO Document 7 Filed 07/28/10 Page 6 of 6