Barger v. Rackley

Filing 14

ORDER Disregarding Petitioner's 13 Motion for Permanent Injunction, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/8/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARY DALE BARGER,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

v.
RACKLEY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01629-LJO-JLT
ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
(Doc. 13)

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas

18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 10, 2014, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the

19

case issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 7). On December 10, 2014,

20

the Findings and Recommendations were adopted by the District Judge, who entered judgment and

21

closed the case on that same date. (Docs. 11 & 12). On December 10, 2014, after judgment had been

22

entered, Petitioner filed the instant motion for a permanent injunction, challenging a variety of prison

23

conditions at his place of incarceration.

24

Because the case was closed when the motion for injunction was docketed, the Court lacks

25

jurisdiction to consider his motion. However, even if the case were still open, the Court would still

26

lack habeas jurisdiction to consider his motion for injunctive relief, since Petioner is not challenging

27

the fact or duration of his confinement, but rather the conditions of his confinement.

28
1

1

A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or

2

duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v.

3

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir.

4

2003)(“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a

5

prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence”); Advisory Committee Notes to

6

Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

7

In contrast to a habeas corpus challenge to the length or duration of confinement, a civil rights

8

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

9

confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea,

10

931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

11

Here, Petitioner challenges only the conditions of his confinement. Hence, even if the case

12

were still open when he filed his motion for injunctive relief, the Court would lack habeas jurisdiction

13

of such “conditions” issues. The proper method for Petitioner to litigate conditions of

14

confinement is through a civil rights action pursuant to § 1983.

15

ORDER

16

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Petitioner’s motion for

17

injunctive relief (Doc. 13), is DISREGARDED.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2