Shane Matthew Mulvihill v. O Akoh

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. IT IS ORDERED that the Petition 1 be dismissed without prejudice. (See Order for complete details) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (afe)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-WESTERN DIVISION

11
12 SHANE MATTHEW MULVIHILL,
13

) Case No. CV 17-00579-MWF (AS)
)
) ORDER OF DISMISSAL
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,

14
v.
15
SUPERVISING CORRECTIONAL
16 COOK, O’AKOH,
17

Respondent.

18
19
BACKGROUND
20
21
On

January

24,

2017,

pro

se

Petitioner,

Shane

Matthew

22
Mulvihille, currently located at California Institution for Men
23
in Chino, California, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
24
(“Petition”).

(Docket Entry No. 1).

The Petition alleges that

25
Supervising Correctional Cook O’Akoh harassed Petitioner and
26
refused to give Petitioner his state-allowed lunch.

(Petition at

27
1, 8).

The Petition appears to raise the following claims: (1)

28
1

1 O’Akoh’s actions violated California Department of Corrections,
2 Title 15, Section 3391(a); and (2) O’Akoh’s actions constituted
3 cruel

and

unusual

punishment

under

the

Eighth

Amendment.

4 (Petition at 4-5).
5
6

“[T]he writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon the

7 legality or duration of confinement.”

Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d

8 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
9 475, 484-86 (1973)); see also Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579
10 (2006) (“‘Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to
11 particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas
12 corpus.’”) (citation omitted).

Since Petitioner’s claims do not

13 attack the legality or duration of his confinement, his claims are
14 not cognizable on federal habeas review. Accordingly, the federal
15 habeas petition filed by Petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must
16 be denied.
17 \\\
18 \\\
19 \\\
20 \\\
21 \\\
22 \\\
23 \\\
24 \\\
25 \\\
26 \\\
27
28
2

1

ORDER

2
3

IT

IS

ORDERED

that

the

Petition

be

dismissed

without

4 prejudice. 1
5
6 DATED: January 30, 2017
7
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

It appears that Petitioner is actually claiming a
violation of his civil rights. If so, Petitioner may seek to
file the appropriate action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
Court notes that Petitioner has two pending civil rights actions
in this Court. See Mulvihill, Shane Matthew v. Dean Borders,
Warden, Case No. CV 17-00079-MWF (AS); Mulvihille, Shane Matthew
v. Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Case No. CV 17-00200MWF (AS).
3