Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00007/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00007-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Neil Adler
Respondent
Elias Espinoza Lopez
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIAS ESPINOZA LOPEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

NEIL ADLER, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:10-CV-00007 SMS HC 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SEND PETITIONER COMPLAINT

FORMS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have voluntarily consented to exercise of Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

DISCUSSION

On January 4, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. In his

petition, Petitioner complains that he is being denied his right to correspond with another inmate.

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the United States. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Writ of habeas corpus relief is available if a federal prisoner can show he is

“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §

2241(c)(3). However, where a Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, his

claims are cognizable in a civil rights action rather than a habeas corpus action. In the federal

context, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:10-cv-00007-SMS Document 6 Filed 01/28/10 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

(1971), provides petitioners with a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. C.f., Badea

v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9 Cir. 1991) (challenges to conditions of confinement by state prisoners

th

should be presented in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action rather than a habeas corpus petition). 

In this case, Petitioner’s complaints involve the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or

duration of that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition

must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a

civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

ORDER

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

DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas

corpus relief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner

the standard form for claims pursuant to Bivens, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:10-cv-00007-SMS Document 6 Filed 01/28/10 Page 2 of 2