Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01114/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01114-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Edward Boult
Plaintiff
Steven Kennedy
Defendant

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 1Plaintiff’s address of record is the address of the Shasta County Jail. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

William Edward Boult

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1114 FCD CMK 

vs.

Steven Kennedy, et al,

Defendants FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

 Plaintiff, who is presently incarcerated in the Shasta County Jail,1 has filed a 42

U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit against both Steven Kennedy, who is employed as a public

defender, and the Shasta County Public Defender’s Office. 

Plaintiff appears to allege ineffective assistance of counsel. He states that his

attorney failed to communicate with him and failed to file motions on his behalf. It is unclear

whether plaintiff has been convicted. Additionally, plaintiff’s claim does not concern any

conditions of his confinement, but, instead, the gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint goes to the

duration or fact of his confinement. Suits challenging the validity of a prisoner’s continued

incarceration lie within “the heart of habeas corpus,” while a §1983 claim is the proper remedy for

Case 2:05-cv-01114-FCD-CMK Document 5 Filed 07/08/05 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

2

a prisoner who is challenging the conditions of his confinement, but not the fact or length of his

stay. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 (1973). 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint be

dismissed without prejudice to him bringing it as a properly exhausted habeas claim. 

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)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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).

DATED: July 7, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01114-FCD-CMK Document 5 Filed 07/08/05 Page 2 of 2