Isreal v. Diaz

Filing 9

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Petition for Writ of Habes Corpus, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 5/1/2013, referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL ISREAL,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.
RALPH M. DIAZ,

15

Respondent.

16

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PETIITON FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
(ECF No. 1)

2254.
Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 18, 2013. For the

19
20

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00385-LJO-SAB (HC)

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

reasons detailed below, the petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed.

21

I.

22

DISCUSSION

23

A.

Procedural Grounds for Dismissal

24

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

25

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears

26

from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules

27

Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990).

28

///
1

1

B.

Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim

2

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show

3

that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus

4

petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement.

5

Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485

6

(1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast,

7

a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the

8

conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411

9

U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing

10
11

Section 2254 Cases.
In this case, Petitioner sole contention is that he has been the subject of racial discrimination by

12

prison officials resulting in a violation of his constitutional rights. Petitioner is challenging the

13

conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not

14

entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue

15

his claims, he must do so by way of other legal means.

16

II.

17

RECOMMENDATION

18
19
20

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the instant petition for writ of
habeas corpus be dismissed.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court

21

Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of

22

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days

23

after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy

24

on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

25

Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after

26

service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28

27

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

28
2

1

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

2

1991).

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
Dated:

8

May 1, 2013

_

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10

DEAC_Signature-END:

i1eed4

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3