Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02025/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02025-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Virgil Douglas Randall
Petitioner
Sacramento County
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VIRGIL DOUGLAS RANDALL, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-2025 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS & 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or 

paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). However, the court will 

not assess a filing fee at this time. Instead, the undersigned will recommend that the petition be 

summarily dismissed. 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 

(Habeas Rules) requires the court to summarily dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears 

from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 

court.” “[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). 

 “[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical 

Case 2:15-cv-02025-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 01/21/16 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 

2

imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or 

a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” 

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). “[R]elief is available to a prisoner under the 

federal habeas statute only if success on the claim would ‘necessarily spell speedier release’ from 

custody.” Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d 992, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Skinner v. Switzer, 562 

U.S. 521, 525, 535 n.13 (2011)). “[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, 

where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s 

sentence.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). The appropriate remedies for 

conditions of confinement that constitute cruel and unusual punishment are “a judicially 

mandated change in conditions and/or an award of damages, but not release from confinement.” 

Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979). 

 Here petitioner alleges that he is being subjected to hazardous living conditions caused by 

employee misconduct and the conditions at the prison facility. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. He further 

alleges that these conditions are causing injury to his lower back, spine, arms, shoulders, feet, 

fingers, and wrists. Id. at 4. He requests that he be released from prison or transferred to a 

facility in southern California. Id. at 5. Petitioner is clearly challenging his conditions of 

confinement and not the fact or duration of his imprisonment. Success on the claim would not 

necessarily result in a speedier release, because release from custody would not be an appropriate 

remedy. For these reasons, it will be recommended that the petition be dismissed without 

prejudice to petitioner pursuing a separate civil rights action. 

Summary 

 The petition should be dismissed because petitioner is challenging prison conditions and 

not his sentence, and success on his claims will not result in a speedier release from custody. If 

petitioner wants to challenge his prison conditions, he may file a civil rights complaint after 

exhausting his available administrative remedies. The court takes no position on the merits or 

timeliness of any civil rights complaint petitioner may file. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 

randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. 

Case 2:15-cv-02025-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 01/21/16 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 

3

 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for writ of habeas 

corpus (ECF No. 1) be denied without prejudice to his pursuit of a separate civil rights action. 

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-one days 

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

objections with the court. Such a 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: January 20, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-02025-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 01/21/16 Page 3 of 3