(HC) Gray v. Cates, No. 2:2010cv00066 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/26/10 ORDERING that petitioner's 2 application to proceed IFP is GRANTED; the clerk to randomly assign a US District Judge to this action; and RECOMMENDING th at petitioner's 1 application for writ of hc be dismissed w/out prejudice to filing a civil rights action in the Fresno Division of this court; and this action be closed. Assigned and Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Gray v. Cates Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICKY GRAY, 11 12 13 Petitioner, No. CIV S-10-0066 DAD P vs. MATTHEW CATE, Warden, 14 ORDER AND Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 / 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma 18 pauperis. 19 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable 20 to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be 21 granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 23 PRELIMINARY SCREENING Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to 24 dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to 25 it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. . . .” Rule 4, Rules Governing 26 Section 2254 Cases. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus at several stages of a case, including “summary 2 dismissal under Rule 4; a dismissal pursuant to a motion by the respondent; a dismissal after the 3 answer and petition are considered; or a dismissal after consideration of the pleadings and an 4 expanded record.” 5 BACKGROUND 6 On January 8, 2010, petitioner commenced this action by filing a petition for writ 7 of habeas corpus. Therein, he alleges that on February 9, 2006, prison officials validated him as 8 a gang member and assessed him to an indeterminate security housing unit term. Petitioner 9 contends that he filed numerous inmate appeals challenging his gang validation, but prison 10 officials have interfered with his right to use the administrative grievance process. In this regard, 11 petitioner claims that prison officials have prevented him from exhausting his claims in violation 12 of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. (Pet. at 5-6 & Attachs.) 13 ANALYSIS 14 The instant petition should be dismissed because petitioner has failed to state a 15 cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. Petitioner is advised that habeas corpus proceedings 16 are the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to challenge the fact or duration of his 17 confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Here, petitioner does not 18 challenge the legality of his conviction, a parole proceeding, or other adjudication that has led to 19 his current incarceration. Rather, petitioner challenges the conditions of his confinement. 20 Petitioner is advised that a civil rights action, not a habeas corpus proceeding, is the proper 21 mechanism for a prisoner seeking to challenge the conditions of his confinement. 42 U.S.C. 22 § 1983; Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled 23 to habeas corpus relief, and this habeas action should be dismissed without prejudice to filing a 24 civil rights action.1 25 1 26 Because petitioner is currently confined at Corcoran State Prison, he should file any civil rights action which he wishes to pursue in the Fresno Division of this court. 2 1 CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Petitioner’s January 8, 2010 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4 No. 2) is granted; and 5 6 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. 7 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. Petitioner’s January 8, 2010 application for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) 9 10 be dismissed without prejudice to filing a civil rights action in the Fresno Division of this court; and 11 2. This action be closed. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 13 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 14 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 15 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 16 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 17 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 18 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 DATED: January 26, 2010. 20 21 22 DAD:9 gray0066.156 23 24 25 26 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.
