Wilson v. Butte County Jail
Filing
7
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/17/11 ORDERING that the petitioners application for a writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the petition filed in this case together with a copy of this order on the Attorney General of the State of California. (cc Michael Farrell)(Dillon, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
EDDIE T. WILSON,
Petitioner,
11
12
13
14
15
16
No. CIV S-11-2363 CKD
vs.
BUTTE COUNTY JAIL,
Respondent.
ORDER
/
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of
17
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner consented to the jurisdiction of the
18
undersigned (dkt. #5). The petition alleges that jail officials violated petitioner’s constitutional
19
rights by denying his medical needs for a lower bunk and/or tier, a cane, a back brace, physical
20
therapy, medication, and mental health care.
21
Petitioner’s challenges to his conditions of confinement are properly the subject of
22
an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Such actions have different procedural and
23
exhaustion requirements, and are governed by a different body of substantive law, than actions
24
seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus. As the United States Supreme Court has stated:
25
26
Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related
to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. §
1
1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of
any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the
province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500
(1973); requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement
may be presented in a § 1983 action. . . . Federal petitions for
habeas corpus may be granted only after other avenues of relief
have been exhausted. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). [Citation.]
Prisoners suing under § 1983, in contrast, generally face a
substantially lower gate, even with the requirement of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that administrative opportunities be
exhausted first. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749, 750-751 (2004) (per curiam).
8
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides
9
for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and
10
any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the
11
instant case, it is plain from the petition that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief.
12
Therefore, the petition should be summarily dismissed.1
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitioner’s
13
14
application for a writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed
15
to serve a copy of the petition filed in this case together with a copy of this order on the Attorney
16
General of the State of California.
17
Dated: November 17, 2011
18
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
2
wils2363.156b
23
24
1
25
26
Petitioner may re-file the instant claims in an action pursuant to section 1983. Petitioner
is advised that the statutory filing fee for such an action is $350.00. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a),
1915(b)(1). A section 1983 inmate plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is obligated to pay this fee
in monthly installments from his or her prison trust account.
2
]]>
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?
