-EFB (HC) Watkins v. Singh, No. 2:2011cv01689 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/30/11 ORDERING the clerk of the court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. randomly assigned to this case. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
-EFB (HC) Watkins v. Singh Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NOEL KEITH WATKINS, Petitioner, 11 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-11-1689 EFB P VAMIL SINGH, 14 15 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. / 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 17 U.S.C. § 2254. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In his petition, petitioner claims he has endured serious medical, safety, and 19 housing problems because of a skin condition affecting up to one-third of his body. 20 In federal court, there are two main avenues to relief on complaints related to one’s 21 imprisonment – a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a civil rights 22 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of one’s confinement or the 23 duration of one’s confinement are properly brought in a habeas action, whereas requests for 24 relief turning on the circumstances of one’s confinement are properly brought in a § 1983 action. 25 Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 26 (1973)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only 2 on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the 3 United States.”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 4 Here, petitioner’s claim concerns the conditions of his confinement only and does not 5 concern the validity or duration of his confinement. Therefore, this case should be dismissed 6 without prejudice to filing a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Rule 4, Rules 7 Governing § 2254 Cases. 8 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. 10 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 13 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 14 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 15 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 16 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. 17 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 Dated: August 30, 2011. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.