-JLT (HC) Williams v. Ahlin et al, No. 1:2011cv00202 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be Dismissed, that Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary and/or Permanent Injunction be Denied as Moot, and the Clerk of Court be Directed to send Petition Standard Form for Claims Pursuant to 42 USC 1983 signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/16/2011. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 3/14/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF

-JLT (HC) Williams v. Ahlin et al Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, 12 13 Petitioner, v. 14 PAM AHLIN, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:11-cv-00202-LJO-JLT HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1) ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 4, 2011, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of 20 habeas corpus in this Court. (Doc. 1). 21 Petitioner alleges that he is in custody of Respondent, serving a sentence of unspecified 22 length as a result of a conviction for unspecified crimes in the San Francisco County Superior 23 Court on an unspecified date. However, in the petition, Petitioner does not challenge either his 24 conviction or sentence. Instead, Petitioner raises two grounds for relief: (1) Respondent’s 25 policies of withdrawing monies from the hospital trust accounts of petitioner and other inmates 26 to pay for the cost of their care and treatment while confined at the hospital facility is a violation 27 of Petitioner’s 5th and 14th Amendment due process rights; and (2) Petitioner and other inmates 28 are constitutionally entitled to the interest earned annually from their personal hospital trust 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 accounts, based on United States Supreme Court case law. (Doc. 1, p. 4). 2 3 DISCUSSION Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 4 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 5 plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 6 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 7 (9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the 8 petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 9 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality 10 or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, 11 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 12 2003)(“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent...where a successful challenge to a prison condition will 13 not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the 14 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 15 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. 16 McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 17 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 18 In this case, as mentioned, Petitioner alleges that Respondent is wrongfully taking monies 19 from the prisoners’ hospital trust accounts to pay for the prisoners’ medical services and that 20 prisoners’ are entitled to interest on the money in their hospital trust accounts. As relief, 21 Petitioner requests, inter alia, that this Court certify the matter as a class action suit, that it issue 22 temporary and permanent injunctions enjoining Respondent from engaging in the challenged 23 policies, that it issue an order requiring Respondent to cease enforcement of the challenged 24 policies, and that the Court award costs and attorney’s fees to Petitioner and other class members. 25 (Doc. 1, p. 16). 26 Petitioner is thus challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration 27 of that confinement. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition 28 should be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by way 2 1 of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2 RECOMMENDATION 3 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS: 4 1. That the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED because the 5 petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus relief; 6 2. That Petitioner’s motion for a temporary and/or permanent injunction be DENIED as 7 MOOT; and, 8 3. That the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to send Petitioner the standard form for claims 9 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 10 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge 11 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 12 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 13 Within twenty days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the 14 court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 15 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate 16 Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 17 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 18 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: February 16, 2011 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.