United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILING TO STATE COGNIZABLE CLAIM
MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.
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 filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 2, 2015. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) In the petition, Petitioner alleges violations of his due process and equal protection rights under the First, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. at 1.) Although unclear, it appears that Petitioner is challenging the denial of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights matter previously filed with this court and prison administrative decisions that resulted in his placement in administrative segregation. (Id.)
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 pursuant to 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.
Petitioner's claims do not implicate the fact or duration of his confinement. Petitioner seeks relief from the conditions of his confinement. (See Pet.) Petitioner challenges the actions of the federal court in denying his civil rights action, and attempts to again present his claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference. (Pet. at 4-9.) Further, Petitioner claims that he was improperly placed in administrative segregation. (Id. at 6.)
Petitioner does not challenge his underlying conviction. Nor does Petitioner allege that the administrative proceedings resulted in the loss of good time credits that increased the duration of his sentence. Petitioner's claims are not cognizable grounds for federal habeas corpus relief and must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, he must do so by way of a civil ...