(HC) Lyles v. Clark et al, No. 1:2007cv01155 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2007)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending Dismissal of Certain Claims 1. Motion referred to Judge O'Neill.Objections to F&R due by 9/20/2007, signed by Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 8/16/07. (Gil-Garcia, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Lyles v. Clark et al Doc. 5 Case 1:07-cv-01155-LJO-SMS Document 5 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOSEPH DEMETRIUS LYLES, 10 Petitioner, 11 1:07-cv-01155-LJO-SMS (HC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS v. 12 [Doc. 1] KEN CLARK, Warden 13 Respondent. 14 / 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 17 Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 6, 2007. In the 18 instant petition, Petitioner raises the following claims (1) denial of legal access resulted in rules 19 violation report; (2) the library was aware of pending legal deadline and was slow in issuing 20 ducket; (3) limited access to the law library; and (4) the disciplinary action has delayed his parole 21 date. 22 A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal 23 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part: 24 25 If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. 26 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ 27 of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:07-cv-01155-LJO-SMS Document 5 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 2 of 3 1 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A petition for habeas corpus should not 2 be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be 3 pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 4 B. 5 Failure to State Cognizable Federal Habeas Claim Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 6 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 7 plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the 8 Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). A 9 federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show that 10 "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus 11 petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his 12 confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 13 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 14 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method 15 for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 16 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee 17 Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 18 Only Ground Four of the instant petition is arguably cognizable pursuant to § 2254. 19 Grounds One, Two, and Three challenge the conditions of Petitioner’s confinement, not the fact 20 or duration of that confinement. Thus, he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief on these grounds 21 and they must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue these claims, he must do so by 22 way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 23 RECOMMENDATION 24 25 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Grounds One, Two, and Three of the instant petition be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim. 26 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 27 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of 28 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 2 Case 1:07-cv-01155-LJO-SMS Document 5 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 3 of 3 1 Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with 2 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 3 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served 4 and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the 5 objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 6 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 7 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 8 Cir. 1991). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: icido3 August 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
