Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Carlos Bencomo v. David Singer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 19, 2012

CARLOS BENCOMO, PETITIONER,
v.
DAVID SINGER, U.S. MARSHAL, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: George H. WU United States District Judge

ORDER RE SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION

On July 31, 2012, petitioner filed what is captioned a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody. Petitioner alleges that he is a pretrial detainee currently being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC"). Petitioner claims that he has injured his shoulder but that he is being denied medical treatment.

Petitioner's claim is not directed to the legality or duration of petitioner's current confinement. Rather, petitioner's claim is directed to conditions of confinement allegedly experienced by petitioner at MDC.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is limited to attacks upon the legality or duration of confinement. Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-86 (1973)). "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) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 498-99); see also Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 875 n.1 (1990). Petitioner's claim as presently alleged does not implicate the legality or duration of confinement, but rather concerns the conditions of his confinement.

If petitioner wishes to pursue a civil rights action, he should use the appropriate form and pay the appropriate filing fee (or demonstrate that he is unable to pay the fee*fn1 ). Petitioner is advised that pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) he must exhaust his administrative remedies before commencing his civil rights action. In addition, any civil rights complaint filed by petitioner will be subject to screening, for purposes of determining whether the action is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the United States District Court, it is therefore ordered that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

Presented by: /S/ FREDERICK F. MUMM FREDERICK F. MUMM United States Magistrate Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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