(HC) Hairston v. Boy's & Girl's Club, No. 2:2018cv02669 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/11/2018 ASSIGNING CASE to District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes for all further proceedings. New Case Number: 2:18-CV-2669 MC E DB; RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed; Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Petitioner's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED as Moot; Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L) Modified on 10/12/2018 (Reader, L).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ROBEY HAIRSTON, 9 Petitioner, 10 11 No. 2:18-cv-2669 DB P v. BOY’S & GIRL’S CLUB, 12 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. 13 14 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 15 16 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner 17 alleges numerous violations of the civil rights of two people by a Boys and Girls Club. For 18 several reasons, the court will recommend this action be dismissed. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the court to make a preliminary 19 20 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly 21 appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4, Rules Governing 22 § 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). First, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is appropriate only for an action seeking to 23 24 challenge a detention. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 2254(a), 2255. In the present case, petitioner is 25 not challenging a detention. Second, to the extent petitioner is seeking relief for a violation of his civil rights, he is 26 27 advised that he must file any such complaint in the district where the violation occurred. It 28 //// 1 appears that petitioner is seeking relief for something that occurred in Palm Desert, California. 2 Palm Desert is part of the Central District of California. 3 Finally, petitioner is further advised that a suit for a violation of his civil rights under 42 4 U.S.C. § 1983 is only appropriate against an entity acting “under color of state law.” If petitioner 5 wishes to bring a suit against the Boys and Girls Club under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must first 6 determine whether it is an entity acting under color of state law. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this action; and 9 2. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied as moot. 10 11 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. Dated: October 11, 2018 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 DLB:9 DB/prisoner-habeas/hair2669.fr 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
