Brown v. Copenhaver

Filing 5

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) be DISMISSED and the Clerk of Court be Directed to Provide Petitioner with the Standard Form for Filing a Civil Rights Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/8/2014. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH ANTHONY BROWN,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.

15
16
17

PAUL COPENHAVER, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14-cv-00481 LJO GSA HC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS

18
19
20

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

21

On April 4, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims that

22

prison staff have wrongfully referred him for placement in a “Control Unit Facility” in spite of certain

23

mental health evaluations.

24

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the United

25

States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Writ of habeas corpus relief is available if a federal prisoner can show

26

he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §

27

2241(c)(3). However, where a Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, his

28

claims are cognizable in a civil rights action rather than a habeas corpus action. In the federal context,
1

1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), provides

2

petitioners with a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. C.f., Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d

3

573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (challenges to conditions of confinement by state prisoners should be

4

presented in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action rather than a habeas corpus petition).

5

In this case, Petitioner’s complaints involve the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or

6

duration of that confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief and this petition

7

must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a

8

civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
RECOMMENDATION

9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

11

DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to provide Petitioner with the standard form for

12

filing a civil rights action pursuant to Bivens, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

13

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill, United

14

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304

15

of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.

16

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections

17

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

18

Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

19

636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

20

the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 8, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2