Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00335/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00335-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Knowles
Respondent
Richard Robert Melnyk
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD ROBERT MELNYK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

MICHAEL KNOWLES, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00335 OWW NEW (DLB) HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

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).

On December 22, 2006, Petitioner filed a federal civil rights complaint in this Court. The

complaint was assigned case number “1:06-CV-1869 AWI LJO PC.” On March 1, 2007, Petitioner

filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. This petition was assigned

case number “1:07-CV-0335 OWW NEW (DLB) HC.” The Court has reviewed both of these cases

and finds that the habeas petition raises the same claims as in the civil rights complaint. In light of

the duplicative nature of the actions, the Court finds that the instant habeas action should be

dismissed.

Further, a federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner

Case 1:07-cv-00335-OWW -LJO Document 6 Filed 04/12/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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 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 prison staff have not released the money in his prison trust

account. 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. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED as duplicative and for failure to state a claim. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Court Judge, 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 ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) 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 Recommendation.” 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 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: April 11, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00335-OWW -LJO Document 6 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 2