Morales v. Biter

Filing 9

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 8 Motion for Leave to File Additional Objections signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 03/10/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

JOSELUIS MORALES,

12

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

MARTIN BITER,

15

Respondent.

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01035-LJO-JLT
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL
OBJECTIONS (Doc. 8)

16
17
18

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

19
20

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The instant petition was filed on July 5, 2013. (Doc. 1). On July 18, 2013, the Court issued

21

Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the petition for lack of habeas jurisdiction. (Doc. 3). The

22

Findings and Recommendations provided that either party could file objections within 21 days. On

23

August 1, 2013, Petitioner timely filed his objections. (Doc. 5). On August 23, 2013, the Findings

24

and Recommendations were adopted by the District Judge and judgment was entered. (Docs. 6 & 7).

25

That same day, Petitioner filed the instant motion for leave to file additional objections to the Findings

26

and Recommendations. (Doc. 8). In that motion, Petitioner, in essence, asked that if he could not

27

challenge prison conditions in a habeas petition, that he be allowed to proceed in a civil rights suit

28

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
1

DISCUSSION

1
2

As the Court noted in the Findings and Recommendations, Petitioner did not challenge the fact

3

or duration of his confinement, which is the sole basis for invoking the Court’s habeas jurisdiction.

4

Rather, he raised claims that were confined exclusively to conditions of confinement. In the Findings

5

and Recommendations, the Court advised Petitioner that if he wished to pursue his claims challenging

6

the conditions of confinement, he must file a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 3, p. 4).

7

Under such circumstances, Petitioner’s tardy request to have the Court construe his habeas

8

petition as a § 1983 complaint is both untimely and inappropriate. Relief by way of § 1983 remains

9

available to Petitioner. He simply has to file the appropriate complaint with the appropriate Court.
ORDER

10
11
12

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for leave to file
additional objections (Doc. 8), is DENIED.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 10, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2