(HC) Sonora v. Tehachapi Warden et al, No. 1:2007cv01470 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2007)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus relief, signed by Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 10/16/2007. Motion referred to Judge Ishii, Objections to F&R due by 11/30/2007. (Scrivner, E)

Download PDF

(HC) Sonora v. Tehachapi Warden et al Doc. 5 Case 1:07-cv-01470-AWI-SMS Document 5 Filed 10/16/2007 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSE IGNACIO SONORA, 11 Petitioner, 12 v. 13 14 TEHACHAPI WARDEN, et al., 15 Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:07-CV-01470 AWI SMS HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 16 17 On September 17, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United 18 States District Court for the Northern District of California. By order of the Court dated 19 September 24, 2007, the matter was transferred to the Eastern District and received in this Court. 20 DISCUSSION 21 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review 22 of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears 23 from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 24 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only 25 grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation 26 of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a 27 prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 28 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:07-cv-01470-AWI-SMS Document 5 Filed 10/16/2007 Page 2 of 2 1 to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 2 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. 3 McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 4 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 5 In this case, Petitioner claims prison staff are poisoning his food and beating him. Petitioner 6 is challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Thus, 7 Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition must be dismissed. Should 8 Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a civil rights complaint 9 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. The Court further RECOMMENDS that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to send 14 Petitioner the standard form for claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 15 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United 16 States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 17 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 18 Within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after being served with a copy, any 19 party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 20 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to 21 the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) 22 after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 23 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 24 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 25 Cir. 1991). 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: icido3 October 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 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.