Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00527/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00527-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Edward MacDonald
Respondent
Michael E. Tilton
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL E. TILTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES EDWARD MACDONALD, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:09-CV-00527 AWI MJS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DENY 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. Petitioner’s claims arise out of his October 21, 2008, transfer to

Florence Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona, due to the overcrowding of California state

prisons (Court. Doc. 1, p. 5.)

On January 12, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

United States District Court, District of Arizona. (Court. Doc. 1.) The case was transferred to this

Court on March 9, 2009 because Petitioner is in custody pursuant to a California state court

judgment and his claims arise out of conduct of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation. (Court. Doc. 6.)

///

Case 1:09-cv-00527-AWI-MJS Document 20 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

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. 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 (9th Cir. 1971).

B. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241 of

Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless

he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall 

entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to a 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.

(emphasis added). See also, Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a

person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484

(1973).

Petitioner challenges his transfer to a privately owed correctional facility in Arizona, Florence

Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona. (Court. Doc. 1, p. 20.) Petitioner alleges that his transfer 

is an unconstitutional act of banishment, revoking his California citizenship and requiring his

immediate release. (Id. at 51-52.) 

Petitioner’s claim is not a proper claim in a federal habeas action. It addresses the conditions

of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Where a Petitioner seeks to

challenge the conditions of his confinement, his claims are cognizable in a civil rights action rather

Case 1:09-cv-00527-AWI-MJS Document 20 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

than a habeas corpus action. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (challenges to

conditions of confinement by state prisoners should be presented in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

action rather than a habeas corpus petition). See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 248, 103 S. Ct.

1741, 75 L. Ed. 2d 813 (“an interstate prison transfer... does not deprive an inmate of any liberty

interest protected by the Due Process Clause... .”) “In short, it is neither unreasonable nor unusual

for an inmate to serve practically his entire sentence in a State other than the one in which he was

convicted and sentenced, or to be transferred to an out-of-state prison after serving a portion of his

sentence in his home State.” Id. at 247. 

Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. His petition should be dismissed. If

Petitioner wishes to pursue his claims, he may do so by way of a civil rights complaint.

C. Exhaustion of State Remedies

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a

petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The

exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501

U.S. 722, 731, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 115 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982);

Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9 Cir. 1988). th

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a

full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v.

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S. Ct. 887, 130 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270,

276, 92 S. Ct. 509, 30 L. Ed. 2d 438 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). 

This means that Petitioner must have presented his claims to the California Supreme Court prior to

filing a federal habeas petition. 

Petitioner has not submitted an inmate appeal nor filed for relief in state court. (Court Doc. 1,

pp. 4, 20.) Therefore, his petition is unexhausted. 

///

///

///

Case 1:09-cv-00527-AWI-MJS Document 20 Filed 05/28/10 Page 3 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

D. Conclusion

The instant petition should be dismissed on the merits, notwithstanding petitioner’s

 failure to exhaust state court remedies, since Petitioner has presented no cognizable claims. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus

be DISMISSED and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment and close the case.

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 fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with

the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation.” Petitioner 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 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00527-AWI-MJS Document 20 Filed 05/28/10 Page 4 of 4