Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01806/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01806-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rickey Christian
Petitioner
Kuma J. Deboo
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKEY CHRISTIAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1806 MCE KJM P

vs.

KUMA J. DEBOO, Warden, ORDER AND 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a federal prison inmate, who has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 together with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner alleges he is being held in administrative protective custody even

though he has done nothing wrong. Specifically, he alleges that he and another Jewish prisoner

entered protective custody to avoid harassment and violence from Nazis at the prison. He asks

for a transfer and says that later he will ask for damages. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01806-MCE -KJM Document 6 Filed 02/09/07 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

2

In Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979), a federal prisoner filed

an action under § 2241, alleging that the conditions of his confinement constituted cruel and

unusual punishment, violated his right to due process, and invaded his constitutionally protected

privacy rights. The Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of his action, noting that “the writ of

habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon the legality or duration of confinement.” Id. at 891. 

In Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 387-88 & note (7th Cir. 2005), the Seventh

Circuit acknowledged a previous holding, which found § 2241 proceedings available for those

seeking “a quantum change in the level of custody” such as “having the run of the prison”

instead of “being restricted in solitary confinement.” It recognized, however, that since this

earlier decision, the Supreme Court has held that restrictions are generally not cognizable unless

they impose atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents

of prison life. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). 

Petitioner in this case is not seeking release from custody, but rather transfer to

another prison where he believes he will be safer. Moreover, he notes that he will be asking for

damages as well. This court expresses no opinion whether petitioner’s allegations state a civil

rights claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotic, 403

U.S. 388 (1971), but finds that this action is not properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Should petitioner wish to proceed with a separate civil rights action, he must

demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, any complaint

must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved, for there is no liability

unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the

claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167

(9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and

conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v.

Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Case 2:06-cv-01806-MCE -KJM Document 6 Filed 02/09/07 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

3

Moreover, should petitioner elect to pursue a Bivens action, he will be required to

pay the $350.00 filing fee in installments, even if he qualifies for filing the complaint in forma

pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(1). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request to proceed in

forma pauperis is granted.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

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

Findings and Recommendations.” 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 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 8, 2007. 

2

chri1608.nh

Case 2:06-cv-01806-MCE -KJM Document 6 Filed 02/09/07 Page 3 of 3