(HC) Ransom v. Schribner, No. 1:2005cv01379 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2006)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending ground two of the petition be DISMISSED re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Bryan E Ransom, Motion referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 3/20/2006. Signed by Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/15/06. (Keeler, P)

Download PDF

(HC) Ransom v. Schribner Doc. 7 Case 1:05-cv-01379-AWI-LJO Document 7 Filed 02/15/2006 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRYAN E. RANSOM, 11 Petitioner, 12 v. 13 14 A. K. SCRIBNER, Warden, 15 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:05-CV-1379 AWI LJO HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. #1] 16 17 On November 1, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 18 DISCUSSION 19 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review 20 of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears 21 from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 22 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only 23 grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation 24 of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a 25 prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 26 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes 27 to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 28 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. U.S . District C ourt E. D . C alifor nia cd 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:05-cv-01379-AWI-LJO Document 7 Filed 02/15/2006 Page 2 of 2 1 McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 2 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 3 In this case, Petitioner raises two claims. First, Petitioner claims he is being detained in the 4 Secured Housing Unit (“SHU”) in violation of his due process rights. Second, Petitioner claims his 5 continued incarceration in the California Department of Corrections (“CDC”) is in violation of his 6 due process rights. Petitioner’s first claim for relief is cognizable in a federal habeas action only to 7 the extent that Petitioner challenges his ability to earn good time credits toward a reduction in his 8 sentence. Petitioner’s second claim for relief is not cognizable since Petitioner challenges the 9 conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not 10 entitled to habeas corpus relief with respect to his second claim, and it must be dismissed. Should 11 Petitioner wish to pursue the claim, he must do so by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 12 U.S.C. § 1983. 13 RECOMMENDATION 14 15 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Ground Two of the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to present a cognizable habeas claim. 16 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United 17 States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 18 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 19 Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the 20 court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 21 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and 22 filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. 23 The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 24 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 25 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: b9ed48 February 15, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 U.S . District C ourt E. D . C alifor nia cd 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.