Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01174/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01174-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David D. Harris
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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

1Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that upon the court’s

determination that summary dismissal is inappropriate, the “judge shall order the respondent to

file an answer or other pleading . . . or to take such other action as the judge deems appropriate.”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID D. HARRIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES A. YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 05-1174 REC WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, the court has conducted a preliminary review of the Petition.1

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 in

Case 1:05-cv-01174-AWI-WMW Document 8 Filed 04/25/06 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

the district court." 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 the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

“According to traditional interpretation, the writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon

the legality or duration of confinement.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979)

citing, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-86 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to

Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner’s allegations, however, do not

make such attacks. Petitioner’s claims challenge the conditions of his confinement, not the

fact or duration of that confinement. Specifically, Petitioner challenges the alleged failure of

the Pleasant Valley State Prison to provide him with adequate medical care. Further,

Petitioner seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order transferring him to another prison. 

Such relief is not available through a habeas corpus petition. Challenges to the conditions of

confinement are more appropriately raised in civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d at 891-

92 (9th Cir. 1979). 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s petition

for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner pursuing a properly

filed civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

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

72-304 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, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

Case 1:05-cv-01174-AWI-WMW Document 8 Filed 04/25/06 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

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court 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: April 24, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01174-AWI-WMW Document 8 Filed 04/25/06 Page 3 of 3