Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01366/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01366-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
K. Mendoza-Powers
Respondent
Regenial Clifford Ward
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGENIAL CLIFFORD WARD, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 ) 

v. )

 )

 )

 K. MENDOZA-POWERS, ) 

 ) 

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-01366-LJO-TAG HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 29, 2006, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of

habeas corpus in this Court. (Doc. 1).

Petitioner, who, at the time of filing of the petition alleges that he was assaulted by a

prison guard and that prison officials falsified documents in order to cover up the assault. 

Petitioner does not specify what relief he is seeking from the Court. However, Petitioner does

not challenge either his conviction or sentence.

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 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 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

Case 1:06-cv-01366-LJO-TAG Document 9 Filed 12/12/07 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

2

or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting 

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (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, 141-142 (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 complains that a prison guard assaulted him and that Respondent’s

employees engaged in falsification of records in order to exculpate the assailant. Nowhere does

Petitioner either challenge his conviction or sentence nor does he ever challenge the execution of

that sentence. Petitioner is thus 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.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS:

1. That the 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. 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 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.” 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 

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01366-LJO-TAG Document 9 Filed 12/12/07 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

3

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 11, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01366-LJO-TAG Document 9 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 3