Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00575/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00575-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nathan Cagle
Petitioner
Veal
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHAN CAGLE, No. CIV S-06-0575-FCD-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

VEAL,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s motion to

dismiss (Doc. 16). 

Petitioner states that the petition concerns conditions of confinement and a prison

disciplinary finding. He does not challenge either the underlying conviction or sentence. For

relief, petitioner seeks the following:

1. Reversal of the guilty finding rendered at the prison disciplinary hearing;

2. Restoration of lost good-time credits;

3. Expungement of all references in his prison file to the disciplinary action;

4. $4.5 million in compensatory damages for alleged hearing loss;

Case 2:06-cv-00575-FCD-CMK Document 17 Filed 05/25/07 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

2

5. Reclassification as “other” rather than “white”; and

6. Return of property.

In his motion to dismiss, respondent argues that, except for petitioner’s claim regarding the

prison disciplinary finding, none of plaintiff’s claims are cognizable in a habeas petition because

they relate to the conditions of confinement and not the fact or duration of confinement. 

Respondent argues that, as such, these claims are properly the subject of a civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As to petitioner’s claim regarding the prison disciplinary finding and

resulting loss of good-time credits, which respondent concedes is cognizable in a habeas petition,

respondent argues that the claim should be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 

Petitioner has not filed an opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss. 

Turning first to petitioner’s claim concerning the prison disciplinary action, the

court agrees with respondent that the claim is not exhausted. Specifically, there is no indication

in the petition that petitioner presented the claim to the state court prior to raising it in the instant

petition. The exhaustion of available state remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a federal

court’s consideration of claims sought to be presented in habeas corpus proceedings. See Rose

v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion

requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all

claims before presenting them to the federal court. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276

(1971), Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). Because petition has failed to

do so, his claim regarding the prison disciplinary process must be dismissed, without prejudice.

As to petitioner’s remaining claims, the court also agrees with respondent that

they are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition because they challenge the conditions of his

confinement. State prisoners may not challenge the conditions of their confinement or seek

money damages by way of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-500

(1973). Therefore, all of petitioner’s other claims should be dismissed without prejudice to

raising them in a civil rights action. 

Case 2:06-cv-00575-FCD-CMK Document 17 Filed 05/25/07 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

3

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 16) be granted; and

2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed.

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)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The 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. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 24, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00575-FCD-CMK Document 17 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 3