Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01155/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01155-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lydia C. Hense
Respondent
Jose Ignacio Sonora
Petitioner

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE IGNACIO SONORA,

Petitioner,

v.

LYDIA C. HENSE,

Respondent.

 /

1: 08 CV 01155 AWI WMW HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2254. 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 the

district court." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see, also, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908

F.2d 490 (9 Cir. 1990). th

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

Case 1:08-cv-01155-AWI-WMW Document 6 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

of confinement.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9 Cir. 1979) citing, Preiser v. Rodriguez, th

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 seeks a transfer to another institution, based on the claim that the guards at

his present institution are trying to kill him. Thus, his claims are not appropriate for habeas corpus

relief. 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 (9 Cir. 1991); th

Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d at 891-92 (9 Cir. 1979). th

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted under habeas corpus without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to

file an appropriate civil rights action, and

2) the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01155-AWI-WMW Document 6 Filed 10/07/08 Page 2 of 2