Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01102/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01102-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Angelo Joseph Fernandez
Petitioner
State of California
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGELO JOSEPH FERNANDEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:08-cv-01102-TAG HC 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

MAIL PETITION FORMS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 9, 2008, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas

corpus in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (Doc. 1). On

July 31, 2008, the case was transferred to this Court. (Doc. 4). 

Petitioner, who, at the time of filing of the petition, was incarcerated in Wasco State

Prison (“WSP”), Wasco, California, raises a single ground for relief in his petition, i.e., that

Respondent prevented Petitioner from attending religious service on July 2, 2008, in violation of

Petitioner’s First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Petitioner does not challenge either

his conviction or sentence, or the execution of his sentence. 

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

Case 1:08-cv-01102-TAG Document 10 Filed 10/07/08 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

(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 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)); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 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, 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, Petitioner complains that Respondent prevented him from attending a

religious service on July 2, 2008 because of his “gang affiliation.” (Doc. 1, p. 3). Petitioner is

thus challenging 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. That the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED because the

petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus relief;

2. That the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to send Petitioner the standard form for claims

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and,

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-01102-TAG Document 10 Filed 10/07/08 Page 2 of 2