Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02070/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02070-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reverend Beck
Petitioner
K. Harrington
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

REVEREND BECK ,

Petitioner,

v.

K. HARRINGTON, Warden,

Respondent.

/

1:09-cv-02070-OWW-DLB (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 25, 2009.

(Court Doc. 1.) Petitioner contends that his present incarceration in the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is unlawful. He claims that he was transferred from the

Minnesota Department of Corrections in retaliation for the exercise of his constitutionally

protected rights and he is being denied adequate medical treatment. Petitioner seeks an order

directing the CDCR to cease any disciplinary action against him and return him to the State of

Minnesota. 

DISCUSSION

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 face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4

1

Case 1:09-cv-02070-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 02/22/10 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

of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990).

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner 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’s claims of retaliation and denial of adequate medical treatment are

challenges to the conditions of confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Thus,

Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition must be dismissed. Indeed,

Petitioner has previously filed a section 2254 petition in case number 1:09-cv-00276 TAG HC, on

February 12, 2009. That petition was dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim on April 2,

2009. Thereafter, Petitioner sought review of these claims by way of a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in case number 1:09-cv-00486 SMS PC, which was dismissed with

prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim on September 22, 2009. (Court Docs. 26, 27.) 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to terminate this action.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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 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

2

Case 1:09-cv-02070-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 02/22/10 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

filed within fourteen (14) days 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: February 22, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-02070-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 02/22/10 Page 3 of 3