Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00008/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00008-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roxanne Ari
Petitioner
Mary Lattimore
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROXANNE ARI, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

MARY LATTIMORE, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:10-CV-00008 AWI GSA HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. 

On January 4, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. Following a preliminary review of the petition, on January 20, 2010, the undersigned issued

an order dismissing the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim. Petitioner was granted leave

to file an amended petition within (30) days of the date of service of the order. Petitioner then filed a

motion for certificate of appealability which was denied by the District Court and dismissed by the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Regardless, Petitioner was granted another thirty (30) days time to

file an amended petition. She has not done so. 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:10-cv-00008-AWI-GSA Document 14 Filed 03/25/10 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

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk

to notify the petitioner. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9

th

Cir.2001). A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it

appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson,

440 F.2d 13, 14 (9 Cir. 1971). th

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show

that "[s]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 her

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. 

As stated in the Court’s order of January 4, 2010, the instant petition raises numerous

challenges which fail to state a cognizable federal claim. Petitioner complains that she was

unlawfully issued “Ducats, CDC 128s, CDC 115 and Keyhea [sic] Order[s].” Petitioner does not

state how these various issuances have affected the legality or duration of her confinement. In fact,

the majority of the supporting arguments to her claim concern her refusal of medical treatment. If

these issuances have no effect on the length or duration of confinement, they are not cognizable in a

federal habeas action and must be dismissed. Petitioner further alleges that she is being forced to

take medications against her will and that this forced administration of drugs has caused her to suffer

severe medical problems. This claim involves conditions of her confinement and must be raised by

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:10-cv-00008-AWI-GSA Document 14 Filed 03/25/10 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

way of a civil rights complaint. 

The instant petition fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. Petitioner has been granted

leave to file an amended petition raising only cognizable claims, but she has opted not to do so. She

was forewarned that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for 

failure to state a claim.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner 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.” The Court will then

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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: March 25, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 3

Case 1:10-cv-00008-AWI-GSA Document 14 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 3