Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01751/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01751-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marty Glen Allen
Petitioner
J. Walker
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTY GLEN ALLEN,

Petitioner,

v.

J. WALKER,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01751 DLB (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO AMEND PETITION TO INCLUDE A

SECTION 1983 CLAIM AND

DISREGARDING MOTION TO SERVE

RESPONDENT

[Docs. 32, 33] 

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), the parties have consented to

the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

On August 18, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition to include a civil

rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging a new prison policy, and requests that the

Court serve the motion on Respondent. (Court Docs. 32, 33.) 

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 Rule 1 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. 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 Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Case 1:07-cv-01751-DLB Document 41 Filed 09/23/08 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

This instant action is proceeding under section 2254, and Petitioner cannot amend the

petition to add claims challenging the conditions of his confinement. In fact, a review of the

Court’s docket reflects that Petitioner currently has a section 1983 action pending in this Court. 

See 2:08-cv-00944-JAM-CMK (PC). Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition,

filed August 18, 2008, is DENIED, and Petitioner’s request to serve Respondent is

DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 23, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01751-DLB Document 41 Filed 09/23/08 Page 2 of 2