Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01010/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01010-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fresno County Jail
Respondent
LaTonia Jones
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LaTONIA JONES,

Petitioner,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01010-BAM HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM

(Doc. 1)

Petitioner proceeds pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254.1 Petitioner challenges the conditions of confinement in the Fresno County Jail, particularly 

with regard to fire safety.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct 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 Rules 

Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). A petition 

for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable 

claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th

Cir. 1971). In this case, dismissal is warranted.

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:15-cv-01010-BAM Document 5 Filed 08/07/15 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

Challenges to the conditions of prison life are properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 142 (1991). A federal petition for writ of habeas corpus 

concerns whether a petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his 

confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come within 

the literal terms of § 1983. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). 

Fire prevention and other safety precautions may constitute violations of the Eighth 

Amendment to the Constitution. Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 783-84 (9th Cir. 1985). 

"Persons involuntarily confined by the state have a constitutional right to safe conditions of 

confinement." Santana v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172, 1183 (1st Cir. 1983) (citing Youngblood v. 

Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982)). "Prisoners have the right not to be subjected to the unreasonable 

threat of injury or death by fire and need not wait until actual casualties occur in order to obtain 

relief from such conditions." Santana, 714 F.2d at 1183 (citing Leeds v. Watson, 630 F.2d 674, 675-

76 (9th Cir. 1980).

Because Petitioner's claims are not among those for which the Court may grant habeas relief, 

the Court must dismiss the habeas petition. Petitioner may seek relief, however, by filing her claims 

in a civil rights action pursuant to § 1983.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court hereby DISMISSES Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Clerk of 

Court is directed to send Petitioner a civil rights complaint form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01010-BAM Document 5 Filed 08/07/15 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

Case 1:15-cv-01010-BAM Document 5 Filed 08/07/15 Page 3 of 3