Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00688/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00688-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Arnold
Respondent
Chester Wheeler
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHESTER WHEELER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ERIC ARNOLD, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-688-JAM-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. ECF 

No. 13. For the reasons stated below, respondent’s motion must be granted. 

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 

duration of 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 

Case 2:15-cv-00688-JAM-EFB Document 16 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

States.”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. In essence, 

claims that would not necessarily shorten an inmate’s sentence, if successful, fall outside the 

scope of habeas jurisdiction. See Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1151, 1157 (9th Cir. 2011). 

In this case, petitioner alleges that his equal protections rights were violated when prison 

officials refused to reclassify him as a non-violent offender and that he is ineligible for housing 

that would allow him increased access to prison programs. See ECF No. 1. This habeas action 

must be dismissed because petitioner’s claim concerns only the conditions of his confinement. It 

does not sound in habeas because it does not concern the validity or duration of his confinement. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to dismiss 

(ECF No. 13) be granted. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 

his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 

event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 

§ 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a 

final order adverse to the applicant). 

Dated: December 1, 2015. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00688-JAM-EFB Document 16 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 2