Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00212/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00212-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelly Harrington
Respondent
Jason Earl Jones
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

JASON EARL JONES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

KELLY HARRINGTON, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:10-CV-00212 AWI GSA HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS 

On February 10, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

DISCUSSION

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 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 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 . . . ." 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 Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:10-cv-00212-AWI-GSA Document 5 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 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

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. 

In this case, Petitioner claims he was wrongfully found guilty of a rules violation for

distributing narcotics. He claims that as a result of the guilty finding, he has been sanctioned with a

loss of visitation privileges. He requests that the guilty finding be overturned and his visitation

privileges be reinstated. Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or

duration of that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition

must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a

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

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas

corpus relief. The Court further RECOMMENDS that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to send

Petitioner the standard form for claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, 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, 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 Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall

be served and filed within fourteen (14) days 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: March 4, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:10-cv-00212-AWI-GSA Document 5 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 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

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 3

Case 1:10-cv-00212-AWI-GSA Document 5 Filed 03/04/10 Page 3 of 3