(HC) Corral v. Gonzalez et al, No. 1:2010cv00699 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the 1 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 Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 6/2/2010. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 7/6/2010. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF

(HC) Corral v. Gonzalez et al Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 TOMMY CORRAL, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 15 F. GONZALEZ, Warden, et al., 16 Respondents. 1:10-CV-00699 LJO SMS HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ) 17 18 On April 21, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 19 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 lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration.” Hill v. 28 McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Preiser v. U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing 2 Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper 3 method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 4 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee 5 Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 6 In this case, Petitioner claims he has been wrongfully classified as an active gang member. 7 He alleges that as a result of his gang validation he has been placed in the secured housing unit in 8 violation of his due process rights. Petitioner's claims are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus. 9 “[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison 10 condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner's sentence.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 11 (9th Cir.2003). In particular, where, as here, a petitioner's successful challenge to his validation as a 12 gang member and the administrative segregation resulting therefrom will not necessarily shorten the 13 prisoner's sentence, habeas jurisdiction does not lie. Id. Accordingly, Petitioner may not proceed with 14 his claims by way of federal habeas corpus and the petition must be dismissed. Should Petitioner 15 wish to pursue his claims, he must do so by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 16 1983. 17 RECOMMENDATION 18 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be 19 DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas 20 corpus relief. The Court further RECOMMENDS that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to send 21 Petitioner the standard form for claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill, 23 United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 24 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 25 Within thirty (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written 26 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 27 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall 28 be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The Court will then U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 2 1 review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised 2 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 3 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: icido3 June 2, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 3

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.