Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01093/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01093-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donny Love
Petitioner
Andre Matevousian
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

DONNY LOVE,

Petitioner,

v.

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01093-LJO-GSA-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at 

United States Penitentiary-Atwater in Atwater, California.

On July 15, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this 

Court. He claims that prison staff at MCC San Diego tampered with his mail while he was 

incarcerated there from 2010 through 2013 by opening his incoming and outgoing legal mail out 

of his presence, photocopying it, and not giving it to Petitioner for weeks or delaying sending it. 

He also claims that prison staff at FCI Victorville opened his incoming and outgoing confidential 

legal mail out of his presence in 2013. 

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 petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the 

Case 1:15-cv-01093-LJO-GSA Document 6 Filed 08/18/15 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

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th 

Cir.1990). 

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the 

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A writ of habeas corpus is available if a federal prisoner 

can show he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). However, where a Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions 

of his confinement, his claims are cognizable in a civil rights action rather than a habeas corpus 

action. In the federal context, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), provides petitioners with a remedy for violation of civil rights 

by federal actors. C.f., Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (challenges to conditions 

of confinement by state prisoners should be presented in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action 

rather than a habeas corpus petition). 

In this case, Petitioner complains that prison officials have tampered with his mail. 

Petitioner is not claiming he is in custody in violation of the Constitution. He is 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. 

A habeas petition may be construed as a Section 1983 civil rights complaint. Wilwording 

v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). However, there have been significant changes in the law 

post-Wilwording, such as a change in fees. The filing fee for a habeas petition is five dollars, 

and if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the fee is forgiven. However, the fee is now 

$400 for civil rights cases and under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, the prisoner is required 

to pay it by way of deductions from income to the prisoner’s trust account, even if granted in 

forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). A prisoner who might be willing to file a 

habeas petition for which he or she would not have to pay a filing fee might feel otherwise about 

a civil rights compliant for which the $400 fee would be deducted from income to his or her 

account. In addition, a civil rights complaint which is dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for 

failure to state a claim would count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is not true for 

habeas cases. In view of these potential pitfalls for Petitioner if the petition were construed as a 

Case 1:15-cv-01093-LJO-GSA Document 6 Filed 08/18/15 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

civil rights complaint, the case should 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 and 

Bivens, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Court expresses no opinion as to the merits of such a civil 

rights complaint. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus be DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to provide Petitioner with the 

standard form for filing a civil rights action pursuant to Bivens, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill, 

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) 

and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District 

of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written 

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The District Court will then review the Magistrate 

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01093-LJO-GSA Document 6 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 3