-JLT (HC) West v. Lopez, No. 1:2011cv00852 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/2/2011 recommending that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by John E. West be dismissed. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 7/8/2011. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-JLT (HC) West v. Lopez Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN E. WEST, 12 13 Petitioner, v. 14 PAUL LOPEZ, Warden 15 Respondent. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:11-cv-00852-JLT HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1) ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE 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 May 10, 2011, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas 20 corpus in this Court in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 21 (Doc. 1). On May 24, 2011, the case was transferred to this Court. (Doc. 6). In the order of 22 transfer, the Northern District indicated that Petitioner was filing a civil rights complaint 23 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison officials were unlawfully interfering with his 24 mail delivery service. (Doc. 4, p. 1). 25 26 DISCUSSION Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 27 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 28 plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 2 (9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the 3 petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 4 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality 5 or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, 6 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 7 2003)(“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent...where a successful challenge to a prison condition will 8 not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the 9 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 10 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. 11 McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 12 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 13 Here, the petition can be charitably characterized as a rambling series of cryptic–at times 14 incoherent–statements. For example, at one point Petitioner states that “No man is as a island 15 unto itself.” (Doc. 1, p. 9). At another point, Petitioner encourages the reader to take “deep relax 16 [sic] breathing exercises for calming of both spirit and mind.” (Id.). However, for purposes of 17 this Court’s habeas jurisdiction, several points appear undisputed. First, as the Northern District 18 court noted, Petitioner does appear to be challenging actions by Respondent’s employees who, 19 according to Petitioner, are interfering with Petitioner’s prison mail service. (Id., p. 2). Second, 20 Petitioner clearly indicates that he is challenging “conditions of confinement.” (Id.). Moreover, 21 the petition is entirely devoid of any statements or allegations suggesting that Petitioner is 22 challenging a conviction or sentence. 23 Therefore, the Court agrees with the Northern District court that Petitioner is challenging 24 the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Therefore, 25 Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition must be dismissed. Should 26 Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a civil rights complaint 27 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 28 /// 2 1 2 3 ORDER Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a United States District Judge to this case. 4 5 RECOMMENDATION For the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 6 habeas corpus (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would 7 entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus relief. 8 9 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 10 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 11 Within twenty days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the 12 court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 13 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate 14 Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 15 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 16 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: June 2, 2011 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 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.
