(HC) Crisp v. California Health Care Facility, No. 2:2014cv01839 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER ; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONSsigned by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/12/14 ORDERING that petitioners application to proceed in formapauperis 2 is granted and the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign this action to a United Sta tes District Judge. Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice to filing a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Dillon, M)

Download PDF

(HC) Crisp v. California Health Care Facility Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 OBIE L. CRISP, III, 11 12 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-1839-EFB P Petitioner, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS1 CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE FACILITY, Respondent. 15 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 2254.2 The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 of the Rules 19 Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that it must be summarily dismissed. See Rule 4, 20 Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (requiring summary dismissal of habeas petition if, upon initial 21 review by a judge, it plainly appears “that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 22 court”). The petition alleges that the administrative appeals process at the California Health Care 23 Facility is inadequate. ECF No. 1. 24 1 25 26 27 28 Petitioner did not respond to the court’s order directing him to complete and return the form indicating either his consent to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge or request for reassignment to a district judge. Accordingly, the clerk will be directed to randomly assign this case to a district judge. 2 Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Federal courts offer two main avenues to relief on complaints related to one’s 2 imprisonment – a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a civil rights 3 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of one’s confinement or the 4 duration of one’s confinement are properly brought in a habeas action, whereas requests for relief 5 turning on the circumstances of one’s confinement are properly brought in a § 1983 action. 6 Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 7 (1973)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ 8 of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only 9 on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 10 States.”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Here, 11 petitioner’s claim does not sound in habeas because it does not concern the validity or duration of 12 his confinement. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted and the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign this action to a 15 United States District Judge. 16 17 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice to filing a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 20 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 22 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 23 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 24 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 25 his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 26 event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it 2 enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 3 Dated: November 12, 2014. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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.