Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01889/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01889-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shannon Dwain Hogan
Petitioner
Unknown
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

SHANNON DWAIN HOGAN,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-1889 CKD P

ORDER

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

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

the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all grounds of relief available to the 

petitioner; 2) state the facts supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested. Notice 

pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must state facts that point to a real possibility of 

constitutional error.” Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; see Blackledge v. 

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977). Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusory, or 

palpably incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 

(9th Cir. 1990). 

Case 2:15-cv-01889-MCE-CKD Document 4 Filed 10/07/15 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

2

Here, the petition does not meet the pleading requirements of Rule 2(c) and will be 

dismissed. However, petitioner will be granted thirty days to file an amended petition that 

complies with Rule 2(c) and all other applicable rules. 

If petitioner chooses to file an amended petition, he is advised that 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)). 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, (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574. Thus to the extent 

petitioner’s claims do not affect the duration of his confinement, they are not properly brought 

within this federal habeas action and are subject to dismissal.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted;

2. The petition is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Habeas Rule 2(c); 

3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended petition 

as described above; and

4. Petitioner’s failure to timely file an amended petition will result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed. 

Dated: October 7, 2015

2 / hoga1889.R2(c)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-01889-MCE-CKD Document 4 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 2