(HC) Williams v. Adams, No. 1:2007cv00925 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2007)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED, signed by Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 07/03/2007. Motion referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 8/8/2007. (Esteves, C)

Download PDF

(HC) Williams v. Adams Doc. 3 Case 1:07-cv-00925-AWI-SMS Document 3 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRAD A. WILLIAMS, 8 9 CV F 07-00925 AWI SMS HC Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 10 [Doc. 1] DARREL G. ADAMS, Warden, 11 Respondent. 12 / 13 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 15 Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 27, 2007. In the 16 instant petition, Petitioner is challenging his validation as a gang member in retaliation for filing 17 a complaint. Petitioner further contends that prison staff have refused to respond to his 18 grievance. 19 DISCUSSION 20 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 21 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 22 plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 23 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 24 (9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the 25 petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 26 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality 27 or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:07-cv-00925-AWI-SMS Document 3 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 2 of 2 1 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the 2 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. 4 McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 5 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 6 In this case, Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or 7 duration of that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this 8 petition must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by 9 way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 10 RECOMMENDATION 11 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be 12 DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas 13 corpus relief. 14 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 15 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of 16 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 17 Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with 18 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 19 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served 20 and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the 21 objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 22 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 23 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 24 Cir. 1991). 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: icido3 July 3, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.