Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00787/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00787-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Allen Melvin
Petitioner
People 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ALLEN MELVIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:07-CV-0787-OWW WMW HC

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. This court may entertain a petition for 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 habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to

challenge “the very fact or duration of his confinement,” and where “the relief he seeks is a

determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that

imprisonment.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). In contrast, a civil rights

Case 1:07-cv-00787-OWW -WMW Document 6 Filed 11/06/07 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 2

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the

conditions of that confinement. 

In this case, Petitioner expressly states that he is not challenging his conviction, but

rather is challenging denial of his right under California law to seek bail pending appeal. 

Specifically, Petitioner claims that the California Court of Appeal refused to accept his pro se

motion for bail pending appeal, and his appellate attorney refused to file such a motion for

him. Petitioner claims that this amounted to a deprivation of his rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment. Because Petitioner is not challenging his conviction or custody, no habeas

corpus remedy exists for him.

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim; and

2) The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00787-OWW -WMW Document 6 Filed 11/06/07 Page 2 of 2