Wooden v. Adams
Filing
6
FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATION Regarding The Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/29/2011. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 8/4/2011. (Fahrney, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
DEREK WOODEN,
10
11
1:11-cv-00811-LJO-DLB (HC)
Petitioner,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
v.
12
[Doc. 1]
DERRAL ADAMS,
13
Respondent.
14
/
15
Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
16
U.S.C. § 2254.
17
Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 5, 2010.
18
Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of evidence regarding his gang validation and placement in
19
the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”). For the reasons explained below, the petition must be
20
dismissed.
21
DISCUSSION
22
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary
23
review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it
24
plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule
25
4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490
26
(9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the
27
petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. §
28
1
1
2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality
2
or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting,
3
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the
4
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
5
1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement.
6
McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at
7
574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
8
In this case, Petitioner is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of his gang
9
validation which resulted in his placement in the security housing unit. Specifically, Petitioner
10
claims that he was segregated to an indefinite term in the security housing unit without sufficient
11
evidence to demonstrate that he is an active member of a gang. Petitioner is challenging the
12
conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is
13
not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish
14
to pursue his claims, he must do so by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
15
1983.
16
To the extent Petitioner contends that his placement in the SHU has prevented him from
17
earning custody credits, there is no federal liberty interest in an inmate’s ability to earn future
18
credits, as distinct from credits already earned. Sandin v. Conner, 315 U.S. 472 (1995).
19
20
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be
21
DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas
22
corpus relief.
23
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District
24
Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the
25
Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.
26
Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with
27
the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
28
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served
2
1
and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The Court will then review the
2
Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
3
failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
4
Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 29, 2011
/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
