-GSA (HC) Young v. Harrington, No. 1:2010cv02400 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be Dismissed signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 01/27/2011. Referred to Judge Wanger; Objections to F&R due by 3/3/2011. (Flores, E)

Download PDF

-GSA (HC) Young v. Harrington Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 HOWARD YOUNG, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. 12 13 K. HARRINGTON, Warden, 14 Respondent. 1:10-CV-02400 OWW GSA HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ) 15 16 On December 27, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 17 DISCUSSION 18 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review 19 of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears 20 from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 21 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only 22 grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation 23 of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a 24 prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 25 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes 26 to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 27 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. 28 McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 2 In this case, Petitioner claims prison staff have denied him: educational, vocational, and 3 rehabilitation programming; work assignment consideration; reduction of custody status; transfer to 4 another prison; single-cell status; and meals according to his religious beliefs. Petitioner is 5 challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Thus, 6 Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition must be dismissed. Should 7 Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a civil rights complaint 8 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 9 RECOMMENDATION 10 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be 11 DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas 12 corpus relief. The Court further RECOMMENDS that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to send 13 Petitioner the standard form for claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 14 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United 15 States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of 16 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 17 Within thirty (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written 18 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 19 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall 20 be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The Court will then 21 review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised 22 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 23 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: 6i0kij January 27, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia 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.