(HC) Currie v. Mule Creek State Prison Warden, No. 2:2015cv00900 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/07/15 recommending that petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus 1 be dismissed without prejudice to refiling it as a 1983 civil rights action; and the clerk of the court is directed to send petitioner a 1983 civil rights complaint form and accompanying directions. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Currie v. Mule Creek State Prison Warden Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WALTER CURRIE, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:15-cv-0900 GEB AC P Petitioner, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MULE CREEK STATE PRISON WARDEN, Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. In his petition, petitioner alleges that as a mentally ill 20 and openly gay inmate, he is wrongfully being denied single cell housing status in violation of his 21 constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 5. Petitioner seeks 22 declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. at 15, 19. 23 Petitioner’s request for injunctive relief regarding his cell status presents a challenge to the 24 conditions of petitioner’s confinement, which may not be addressed in this habeas action. Habeas 25 jurisdiction exists only for petitioners challenging the legality or duration of their incarceration, 26 not the conditions of confinement. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). 27 Petitioner is advised that the proper mechanism for raising a federal challenge to conditions of 28 confinement is through a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Badea v. Cox, 931 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). Here, petitioner specifically states that “[his] petition does not 2 concern [his] sentence or conviction;” rather, it concerns only “prison conditions” and his need 3 for “single cell status.” See ECF No. 1 at 1. Accordingly, it is recommended that the petition be 4 dismissed without prejudice to petitioner’s right to file a § 1983 civil rights complaint. 5 WARNING: Petitioner is informed that upon filing a § 1983 civil rights complaint, he will 6 be charged a $350 filing fee. Petitioner is cautioned that this court has made no determination as 7 to the merits of his potential § 1983 claims and has made no findings as to whether his claims 8 would survive past the screening stage, should he elect to pursue a civil rights action. 9 Petitioner is further advised that prior to filing a § 1983 civil rights action, he must first 10 file an administrative grievance with the prison and complete the prison grievance process in 11 order to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 42 12 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) (the PLRA requires that 13 administrative remedies be exhausted prior to filing suit). See also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 14 81 (2006) (exhaustion requires that the prisoner complete the administrative review process in 15 accordance with all applicable procedural rules). Petitioner may then seek relief in federal court 16 by filing a § 1983 civil rights complaint. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 18 1. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without 19 prejudice to refilling it as a § 1983 civil rights action; and 20 2. The clerk of the court is directed to send petitioner a § 1983 civil rights complaint 21 form and the accompanying directions. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twentyone days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 25 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 2 1 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 2 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 3 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 DATED: October 7, 2015 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.
