Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01712/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01712-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Archie Cranford
Petitioner
Renee Medina
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

Petitioner alleges that he is in custody of Coalinga State Hospital, and detained there 

indefinitely as a sexually violent predator. (Doc. 1, p. 2). He does not challenge the fact of his 

detention. Rather, Petitioner alleges that, following an assault upon him while in custody, he received 

inadequate medical care and suffered injuries as a result thereof. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5). Because the 

petition fails to invoke habeas jurisdiction, the Court recommends it be DISMISSED.

I. DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review of 

each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from

the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only 

grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation of 

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

 Petitioner,

v.

RENEE MEDINA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01712-JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF HABEAS 

JURISDICTION (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED 

WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

ORDERING DIRECTING CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

Case 1:15-cv-01712-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 3
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

the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 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); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 

850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[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”); Advisory 

Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

The Ninth Circuit has also held that “[h]abeas corpus jurisdiction also exists when a petitioner 

seeks expungement of a disciplinary finding from his record if expungement is likely to accelerate the 

prisoner’s eligibility for parole.” Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989); see also 

Docken v. Chase, 393 F. 3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2004)(“[W]e understand Bostic’s use of the term 

‘likely’ to identify claims with a sufficient nexus to the length of imprisonment so as to implicate, but 

not fall squarely within, the ‘core’ challenges identified by the Preiser Court.”)

In contrast to a habeas corpus challenge to the length or duration of confinement, a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of 

confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 

931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

In this case, as mentioned, Petitioner alleges the he received inadequate medical care at the 

state hospital following an assault upon him four years in the past. Petitioner is thus challenging the 

conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Therefore, 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to assign a United States District 

Judge to this case.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus petition be DISMISSED for 

Petitioner’s failure to state any cognizable federal habeas claims.

Case 1:15-cv-01712-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 3
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

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to this case, 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 21

days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a 

copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within 10 days (plus three 

days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate 

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01712-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 11/17/15 Page 3 of 3