ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition if it "plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. . . ." Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus at several stages of a case, including "summary dismissal under Rule 4; a dismissal pursuant to a motion by the respondent; a dismissal after the answer and petition are considered; or a dismissal after consideration of the pleadings and an expanded record."
On January 15, 2009, petitioner commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, petitioner complains about a transaction with Union Supply Direct. (Pet. Attach. & Exs. D-F.) By way of background, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has approved Union Supply Direct as a vendor for California state prisons. An inmate's family members and friends may purchase food, clothing, and other items for the inmate from the company. Thereafter, Union Supply Direct ships the items in a quarterly package or a special purchase package to the inmate.*fn1 In this case, petitioner claims that his sister paid for and his niece ordered various items from Union Supply Direct online, but he has not received the items nor have his family members been reimbursed for the cost of those items. Petitioner asks the court to hold Union Supply Direct responsible for this failed transaction.*fn2
The instant petition should be dismissed because petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. Petitioner is advised that habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Here, petitioner does not challenge the legality of his conviction, a parole proceeding, or other adjudication that has led to his current incarceration. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this action should be dismissed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's January 15, 2009 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus ...