Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01271/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01271-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Director
Respondent
James Alan Garner
Petitioner
Jeffrey Wrigley
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

JAMES ALAN GARNER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEFFREY WRIGLEY, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-cv-01271-OWW-TAG HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS AND PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Doc.s 1, 8)

ORDER TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN

TWENTY DAYS

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On September 15, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

(Doc. 1). In that petition, Petitioner, who is confined in the Taft Federal Correctional Institution,

Taft, California, alleges that on December 12, 2005, he attempted to file an appeal from a

decision by Respondent to impose a “one-level increase in [Petitioner’s] custody level.” (Id.). 

Subsequent administrative appeals were partially successful, resulting in a recommendation that

Petitioner be transferred to a minimum security facility. (Id.). Respondent later informed

Petitioner that, despite the recommendation for transfer, Respondent was not bound by that

determination and that Petitioner would not be transferred. (Id.).

On August 15, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for default judgment. (Doc. 8). Petitioner’s

motion contends that on July 11, 2007, the Clerk of the Court entered default against respondents

Jeffrey Wrigley, Warden of the Taft Federal Correctional Institution, and Harley Lappin, Director

Case 1:06-cv-01271-OWW -TAG Document 9 Filed 12/06/07 Page 1 of 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 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 1

2

of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“collectively, Respondent”), and that in the absence of

Respondent’s response, a default judgment is warranted. (Doc. 8, pp. 1-2). 

DISCUSSION

A. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490

(9th Cir.1990). 

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); Badea v. Cox, 931

F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1990); Crawford v.

Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-892 (9th Cir. 1979). In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, where the defendants are state actors, or proceeding on a Bivens theory where

1

the defendants are federal actors, is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions

of that confinement. See McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-142 (1991); Preiser, 411

U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Tucker, 925 F.2d at 332.

Here, Petitioner is not questioning the fact or duration of his confinement. Rather,

Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, specifically, Respondent’s refusal to

transfer him to a minimum security facility and/or reduce his custody level. However, habeas

corpus relief is not available to review of the conditions of a petitioner’s confinement. See

Crawford, 599 F.2d at 891-892. This is because condition of confinement claims are not

redressable through a habeas corpus petition. Id. at 891-892. The appropriate remedy for such

violations, if proven, would be a judicially mandated change in conditions and/or an award of

damages; however, release from confinement is the only remedy available through habeas

corpus. Id. at 892. 

Case 1:06-cv-01271-OWW -TAG Document 9 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Petitioner has asked that this Court issue a writ of mandamus requiring Respondent to

show cause why the relief requested by Petitioner, i.e., transfer to a minimum security facility,

should not be granted. (Doc. 1, p. 10). The Court, through habeas corpus, does not have the

authority to give Petitioner such a remedy. Because they concern the conditions of his

confinement, Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on habeas corpus. As such, this action is not

proper as a habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that the petition be

dismissed. 

B. Motion for Default Judgment. 

Petitioner’s motion for default judgment mistakenly contends that “[u]pon the request of

the Petitioner, the Clerk of the Court entered the [d]efault of the Respondent on July 11, 2007.” 

(Doc. 8, p. 1). In fact, no defaults have been entered in this case. (See Docket generally).

Prior to the instant motion, on July 11, 2007, Petitioner filed two requests for entry of

default against Respondent, contending that more than 180 days had elapsed since the service of

the petition and that Respondent had not answered. (Docs. 5, 6). On August 9, 2007, the Court

issued an order denying Petitioner’s requests for entry of default, concluding that because the

case had not been screened for jurisdictional purposes and Respondent had neither entered an

appearance nor been ordered to file a response to the petition, there is no failure on Respondent’s

part that would trigger an entry of default. (Doc. 7). There has been no change in circumstances

since the Court’s August 9, 2007 order, except that the Court has now screened the petition and

determined that the petition fails to allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus

relief. Accordingly, there is no basis for a default judgment and Petitioner’s motion for default

judgment (Doc. 8) should be denied. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that: 

1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED because the

petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus relief; and 

2.Petitioner’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 8) be DENIED.

///

Case 1:06-cv-01271-OWW -TAG Document 9 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 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

4

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within twenty (20) 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 “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The District Judge 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 Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01271-OWW -TAG Document 9 Filed 12/06/07 Page 4 of 4