(HC) Washington v. Adams, No. 1:2009cv01384 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be Dismissed because the Petition does not allege Grounds that would entitle Petitioner to Habeas Corpus Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 8/20/2009. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 9/23/2009. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF

(HC) Washington v. Adams Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CHRISTOPHER NATHANIEL WASHINGTON, 9 10 1:09-cv-01384-OWW-SMS (HC) Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 11 [Doc. 1] DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden 12 Respondent. 13 / 14 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 15 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 16 Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas on August 7, 2009. (Court Doc. 1.) 17 The Court has reviewed the Petition and finds that is must be dismissed. 18 DISCUSSION 19 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 20 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 21 plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 22 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 23 (9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the 24 petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 25 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality 26 or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, 27 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. 3 McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 4 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 5 In this case, Petitioner his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was violated 6 because prison officials denied him the ability to change his name. Petitioner is challenging the 7 conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is 8 not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish 9 to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 10 U.S.C. § 1983. 11 RECOMMENDATION 12 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be 13 DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas 14 corpus relief. 15 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 16 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of 17 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 18 Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with 19 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 20 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served 21 and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the 22 objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 23 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 24 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 25 Cir. 1991). 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: icido3 August 20, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 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.