The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILING TO STATE COGNIZABLE CLAIM (Doc. 1)
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and Local Rule 305(b).
Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 19, 2010. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) Petitioner's action is based on allegations that a December 9, 2004 institutional classification committee decision infringed on his rights by affixing an "R" suffix to his custody designation thereby creating safety issues for him, and he seeks reinstatement in double cell housing. (Id. at 3.)
A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:
If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.
The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. 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 granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).
B. Failure to State Cognizable Claim
The instant petition must be dismissed because it does not challenge the fact or duration of Petitioner's confinement.
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). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the "legality or duration" of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
In contrast, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. "Habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 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).
Petitioner challenges the "R" custody designation as improper under California law.
He does not challenge his conviction or sentence, nor does he allege that the "R" custody designation has affected the length of his sentence. Because Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is his "proper remedy." Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. ...