Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boyd v. Uribe

August 11, 2010

GLENN L. BOYD, JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
DOMINGO URIBE, JR., WARDEN, DEFENDANT.



ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND (2) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. Nos. 9, 13)

Presently before the Court is Respondent Domingo Uribe, Jr.'s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Petitioner Glenn L. Boyd, Jr.'s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 9.) Also before this Court is Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks' report and recommendation ("R&R") advising this Court to grant Respondent's motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 13) and Petitioner's objections and request for leave to amend. (Doc. No. 14.) For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner's objections, ADOPTS the report and recommendation, and GRANTS Petitioner's request for leave to amend.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Magistrate Judge Brooks' R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the facts underlying Petitioner's conviction and state court trial. (R&R at 1--6.) This Order incorporates by reference the facts as set forth in the R&R.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss on February 26, 2010, claiming that (1) the petition does not challenge the legality or duration of Petitioner's confinement, (Memo. ISO Motion at 3--4) (2) Petitioner has no liberty interest in his classification score, (Id. at 4--5) (3) Petitioner fails to allege sufficient facts to state a prima facie case for relief, (Id. at 5--6) and (4) Petitioner's contention that his commitment offense was improperly characterized is improper under habeas corpus review (Id. at 7). Petitioner responded May 3, 2010. (Doc. No. 12.) Magistrate Judge Brooks issued his R&R recommending that the Court deny the petition on June 8, 2010. (Doc. No. 13.) Petitioner lodged his objections on July 1, 2009. (Doc. No. 14.)

LEGAL STANDARDS

I. REVIEW OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. "The district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report... to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980).

II. REVIEW OF HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS UNDER 28U.S.C.§2254

Magistrate Judge Brooks correctly stated the governing legal standard in his R&R. (R&R at 6--8.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), this Court may only review claims within an application for a writ of habeas corpus based "on the ground that [the Petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."

"Habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the 'legality or duration' of confinement. A civil rights action, in contrast, is the proper method of challenging 'conditions of... confinement.'" Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 498--99 (1973)). The Supreme Court has yet to address the propriety of using habeas corpus to challenge the conditions of confinement. Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 527 n.6 (1979)). However, the Ninth Circuit has held that "habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner's sentence." Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003)

III. REVIEW OF AMOTION TO DISMISS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a party to raise by motion the defense that the complaint "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," generally referred to as a motion to dismiss. The Court evaluates whether a complaint states a cognizable legal theory and sufficient facts in light of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.