Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01708/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01708-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Duane Angelo Gittens
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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUANE ANGELO GITTENS,

Petitioner, 

v. 

UNKNOWN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:22-cv-01708-KJM-EFB (HC)

ORDER

 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel. He has captioned this action as a “petition 

[to] the court to file [an] original bill of lading.” ECF No. 1 at 1. He has paid the $5 filing fee 

appropriate for habeas actions.1 2

 Petitioner’s filing, however, does not sound in habeas. As 

discussed below, the petition must be dismissed. See Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases 

(requiring summary dismissal of habeas petition if, upon initial review by a judge, it plainly 

appears “that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court”). 

/////

1 A civil action, by contrast, requires the filing of a complaint and carries a $402 filing fee. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 3; 28 U.S.C. § 1914. 

2

 On December 9, 2022, the court recommended that this action be dismissed because 

petitioner had neither paid the filing fee nor sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 

11. In light of petitioner’s payment of the filing fee, the December 9, 2022 findings and 

recommendations are withdrawn. 

Case 2:22-cv-01708-KJM-EFB Document 19 Filed 06/09/23 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

Challenges to the validity of one’s confinement or the duration of one’s confinement are 

properly brought in a habeas action. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973)). A bill of 

lading, by contrast, is a written contract that “records that a carrier has received goods from the 

party that wishes to ship them, states the terms of carriage, and serves as evidence of the contract 

for carriage.” Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14, 18-19 (2004). It is not clear what relief 

petitioner seeks, if any. To the extent petitioner wishes to pursue a breach of contract claim, he 

must do so by way of a civil complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the December 9, 2022 findings and recommendations 

(ECF No. 11) are withdrawn.

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice to the

filing of a civil complaint alleging breach of contract.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

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

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: June 9, 2023. 

Case 2:22-cv-01708-KJM-EFB Document 19 Filed 06/09/23 Page 2 of 2