(HC)Nguon v. Baughman, No. 2:2019cv00267 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 2/22/2019 ORDERING Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to this case and RECOMMENDING Petitioner's action be dismissed and this case closed. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC)Nguon v. Baughman Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HUNG DUONG NGUON, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:19-cv-00267 GGH P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DAVID BAUGHMAN, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner alleges the following in his petition: “my medical doctor at the California State 19 20 Prison-Sacramento has acted with deliberate indifference to my serious medical needs which 21 denied me adequate medical care, and causing further unnecessary pain, sufferings, and injuries.” 22 ECF No. 1 at 3. Petitioner is currently housed at California State Prison-Sacramento. When a prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his custody and a determination of his 23 24 action may result in plaintiff's entitlement to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of 25 habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 26 (9th Cir.1990). However, the proper mechanism for raising a federal challenge to conditions of 27 confinement is through a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Badea v. Cox, 931 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.1991). Here, petitioner is clearly challenging the conditions of his 2 confinement rather than the fact or duration of his custody. 3 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for 4 summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and 5 any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the 6 instant case, it is plain from the petition and appended exhibits that petitioner is not entitled to 7 federal habeas relief. Therefore, the court will recommend that the petition be summarily 8 dismissed. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this case; and 11 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide petitioner with the court’s form 12 complaint for a civil rights action and an application for requesting leave to proceed in forma 13 pauperis by a prisoner. 14 15 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s action be dismissed and this case closed. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 18 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 19 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 20 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections 21 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 22 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 Dated: February 22, 2019 24 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
