Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00134/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00134-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph Diaz
Defendant
Rudolph Ellis
Plaintiff

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

RUDOLPH ELLIS,

Petitioner,

v.

RALPH DIAZ,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00134-EPG-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

GRANT PETITIONER LEAVE TO 

CONVERT PETITION TO CIVIL RIGHTS 

ACTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Rudolph Ellis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Given that the instant petition challenges conditions 

of confinement and thus, is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus, the undersigned 

recommends that Petitioner be granted leave to convert his petition for writ of habeas corpus to a 

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 

(1994). 

Case 1:20-cv-00134-DAD-EPG Document 5 Filed 01/31/20 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

2

A. Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction

By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a 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 claim is cognizable in habeas when a prisoner challenges “the fact or duration of his 

confinement” and “seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the shortening of its 

duration.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). 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 

confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141–42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499.

In the instant petition, Petitioner asserts that he is being denied visits with his family and 

wife, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (ECF No. 1 at 2–6).1 Petitioner does 

not challenge any aspect of his conviction or sentence or the fact or duration of his confinement.

The Ninth Circuit has “long held that prisoners may not challenge mere conditions of

confinement in habeas corpus.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) 

(citing Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891–92 (9th Cir. 1979)). As Petitioner’s claims do not 

fall within “the core of habeas corpus,” Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487, they must be brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Nettles, 830 F.3d at 931. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable 

claim for federal habeas corpus relief.

B. Conversion to § 1983 Civil Rights Action

“If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it names the correct 

defendants and seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so long as it 

warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an opportunity for 

the litigant to withdraw or amend his or her complaint.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (quoting Glaus 

v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)). The Court notes that habeas corpus and 

prisoner civil rights actions differ in a variety of respects, such as the proper defendants, filing 

fees, exhaustion requirements, and restrictions on future filings (e.g., the Prison Litigation 

 

1 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:20-cv-00134-DAD-EPG Document 5 Filed 01/31/20 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

Reform Act’s three-strikes rule). Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936 (citing Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 

839, 841 (7th Cir. 2011); Glaus, 408 F.3d at 388).

If Petitioner chooses to convert the instant matter to a civil rights action, Petitioner will 

be required to submit a civil rights complaint form that names the proper defendants, seeks 

appropriate relief, and is signed under penalty of perjury.2 The filing fee for § 1983 civil rights 

cases is $350, and Petitioner is required to pay the full amount by way of deductions from 

income to Petitioner’s trust account, even if granted in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). Petitioner also may, at his option, voluntarily dismiss his habeas petition without 

prejudice to refiling his claims as a § 1983 civil rights action. However, Petitioner is forewarned 

that dismissal and refiling may subject Petitioner to a possible statute of limitations bar as well as 

other complications as set forth above.

II.

RECOMMENDATION & ORDER

Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Petitioner be granted 

leave to convert his petition for writ of habeas corpus to a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983.

Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 

the present matter.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Court Judge, 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 service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner 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 Recommendation.” The assigned 

United States District Court 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 

 

2 The Court notes that Petitioner did not sign his petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Case 1:20-cv-00134-DAD-EPG Document 5 Filed 01/31/20 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

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 

834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00134-DAD-EPG Document 5 Filed 01/31/20 Page 4 of 4