Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01906/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01906-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelly Mullins Moore
Petitioner
People of the State of California
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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KELLY MULLINS MOORE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-1906-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254.1

 The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that it must be summarily dismissed. See Rule 4, 

Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (requiring summary dismissal of habeas petition if, upon initial 

review by a judge, it plainly appears “that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 

court”). 

Federal courts offer two main avenues to relief on complaints related to one’s 

imprisonment – a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a civil rights 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of one’s confinement or the 

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; 

see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

Case 2:15-cv-01906-EFB Document 8 Filed 12/01/15 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

duration of one’s confinement are properly brought in a habeas action, whereas requests for relief 

turning on the circumstances of one’s confinement are properly brought in a § 1983 action. 

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 

(1973)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“[A] district court 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.”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

In this case, petitioner complains about inadequate medical care and outdated facilities at 

the Glenn County Jail. ECF No. 1. These claims concerns only the conditions of his confinement 

and do not concern the validity or duration of his confinement. Therefore, this habeas action 

must be summarily dismissed. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed. 

Dated: December 1, 2015. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-01906-EFB Document 8 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 2