(HC)Wright v. Yates, No. 1:2005cv01472 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2006)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that action be DISMISSED; referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger, Objections to F&R due by 3/7/2007 signed by Judge William M. Wunderlich on 2/2/06. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
(HC)Wright v. Yates Doc. 10 Case 1:05-cv-01472-OWW-WMW Document 10 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) ) JAMES A. YATES, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ___________________________________ ) RAYMOND WRIGHT, CV F 05- 1472 OWW WMW HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE DISMISSAL OF PETITION 18 19 20 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 21 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 in 25 the district court." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see, also, Hendricks v. 26 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). 27 A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner 28 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:05-cv-01472-OWW-WMW Document 10 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 2 of 3 1 can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 2 “According to traditional interpretation, the writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon 3 the legality or duration of confinement.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979) 4 citing, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-86 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to 5 Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner’s allegations, however, do not 6 make such attacks. Petitioner’s claims challenge the conditions of his confinement, not the 7 fact or duration of that confinement. Thus, his claims are not appropriate for habeas corpus 8 relief. Challenges to the conditions of confinement are more appropriately raised in civil 9 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 10 11 1991); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d at 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979). Accordingly, the court hereby RECOMMENDS that this petition be DISMISSED 12 WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner’s right to file an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 13 raising the same claims. 14 These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States 15 District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 16 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 17 California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written 18 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 19 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the 20 objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by 21 mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s 22 ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 23 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 24 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 26 27 28 2 Case 1:05-cv-01472-OWW-WMW 1 Dated: February 2, 2006 mmkd34 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 3 of 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Document 10 /s/ William M. Wunderlich UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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.