(HC) Cranford v. Medina, No. 1:2015cv01712 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 1 PETITION FOR LACK OF HABEAS JURISDICTION; ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS AND DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/17/2015. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 12/11/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARCHIE CRANFORD, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. RENEE MEDINA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-01712-JLT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF HABEAS JURISDICTION (Doc. 1) ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS ORDERING DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE Petitioner alleges that he is in custody of Coalinga State Hospital, and detained there 19 indefinitely as a sexually violent predator. (Doc. 1, p. 2). He does not challenge the fact of his 20 detention. Rather, Petitioner alleges that, following an assault upon him while in custody, he received 21 inadequate medical care and suffered injuries as a result thereof. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5). Because the 22 petition fails to invoke habeas jurisdiction, the Court recommends it be DISMISSED. 23 I. 24 DISCUSSION Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review of 25 each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from 26 the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 27 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only 28 grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation of 1 1 the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a 2 prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 3 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 4 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful 5 challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence”); Advisory 6 Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 7 The Ninth Circuit has also held that “[h]abeas corpus jurisdiction also exists when a petitioner 8 seeks expungement of a disciplinary finding from his record if expungement is likely to accelerate the 9 prisoner’s eligibility for parole.” Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989); see also 10 Docken v. Chase, 393 F. 3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2004)(“[W]e understand Bostic’s use of the term 11 ‘likely’ to identify claims with a sufficient nexus to the length of imprisonment so as to implicate, but 12 not fall squarely within, the ‘core’ challenges identified by the Preiser Court.”) 13 In contrast to a habeas corpus challenge to the length or duration of confinement, a civil rights 14 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of 15 confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 16 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 17 In this case, as mentioned, Petitioner alleges the he received inadequate medical care at the 18 state hospital following an assault upon him four years in the past. Petitioner is thus challenging the 19 conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Therefore, Petitioner is not 20 entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue 21 his claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ORDER 22 23 24 25 26 27 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to assign a United States District Judge to this case. RECOMMENDATION Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus petition be DISMISSED for Petitioner’s failure to state any cognizable federal habeas claims. 28 2 1 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 2 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 3 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21 4 days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a 5 copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 6 and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within 10 days (plus three 7 days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate 8 Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 9 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez 10 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 17, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.