(HC) Quezada v. Hedgpeth, No. 1:2009cv01269 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER Requiring Objections to be Filed Within Twenty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/11/2009. The Court RECOMMENDS That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED Because the Petition Does not Allege Grounds That Would Entitle Petitioner to Habeas Corpus Relief. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 12/7/2009. (Bradley, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Quezada v. Hedgpeth Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 ALVARO QUEZADA, 14 15 Petitioner, v. 16 A. HEDGPETH, Warden, et al., 17 Respondents. 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-01269-OWW-BAK-GSA HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1) ORDER REQUIRING OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS 19 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 21, 2009, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas 21 corpus in this Court. (Doc. 1). 22 Petitioner alleges that prison employees engaged in a series of reprisals against him for 23 exercising his right to file grievances against prison staff. Petitioner contends that, as a result of 24 purportedly false disciplinary proceedings filed against him as retaliation for his grievances 25 against staff, Petitioner was subjected to a loss of exercise privileges for ten days and 26 confinement to quarters for thirty days. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-18). 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 DISCUSSION Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 3 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 4 plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 5 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 6 (9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the 7 petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 8 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality 9 or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, 10 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the 11 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. 13 McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 14 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 15 In this case, Petitioner complains that CDCR and its employees engaged in a pattern of 16 retaliation against him for several grievances Petitioner filed against prison staff. This 17 retaliation took the form of allegedly false disciplinary proceedings being brought against 18 Petitioner, resulting in a loss of ten days’ exercise privileges and thirty days’ confinement to 19 quarters. Petitioner does not allege any loss of work or good time credits, nor does he allege that 20 the purported retaliation extended or otherwise affected the length of his sentence. Indeed, in the 21 petition, Petitioner expressly alleges that his claim challenges the “conditions of confinement” at 22 his prison, not Petitioner’s conviction or sentence. (Doc. 1, p. 1). 23 Petitioner is thus challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of 24 that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition should 25 be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a 26 civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 27 28 2 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS: 3 1. That the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED because the 4 petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus relief; 5 2. That the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to send Petitioner the standard form for claims 6 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 7 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of 9 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 10 Within twenty (20) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections 11 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 12 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the 13 Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that 14 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 15 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij November 11, 2009 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
