Taylor v. Villidos et al

Filing 6

ORDER Directing Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge to Case; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Habeas Corpus Petition (Doc. 1 ) be DISMISSED for Petitioner's Failure to State Any Cognizable Federal Habeas Claims signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/2/2015. This case has been assigned to District Judge Anthony W. Ishii and Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. The new case number is 1:15-cv-00952-AWI-JLT (HC). Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY LAMONT TAYLOR,

12

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

VILLIDOS, et al.,

15

Respondents.

16
17
18
19

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

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00952-JLT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF HABEAS
JURISDICTION (Doc. 1)
ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED
WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS
ORDERING DIRECTING CLERK OF THE
COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

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

20

The instant petition was filed on June 24, 2015. (Doc. 1). Petitioner alleges that he is in

21

custody of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, serving a sentence of 28-years-to-

22

life for possession of a controlled substance. (Doc. 1, p. 6). However, Petitioner does not challenge

23

either his conviction or sentence. Instead, Petitioner challenges the conditions of his confinement,

24

specifically lack of proper medical care.

25
26

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

27

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

28

the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
1

1

2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only

2

grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation of

3

the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a

4

prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574

5

(9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973); Ramirez v.

6

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper,

7

where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s

8

sentence”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

9

The Ninth Circuit has also held that “[h]abeas corpus jurisdiction also exists when a petitioner

10

seeks expungement of a disciplinary finding from his record if expungement is likely to accelerate the

11

prisoner’s eligibility for parole.” Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989); see also

12

Docken v. Chase, 393 F. 3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2004)(“[W]e understand Bostic’s use of the term

13

‘likely’ to identify claims with a sufficient nexus to the length of imprisonment so as to implicate, but

14

not fall squarely within, the ‘core’ challenges identified by the Preiser Court.”)

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

In this case, as mentioned, Petitioner alleges that, from May 1, 2014 through May 27, 2014, he

20

was denied access to a “TYY/TDD machine” that was necessary for his hearing impairment. (Doc. 1,

21

p. 4). Several times in the petition, Petitioner indicates that he is challenging “prison conditions,” (Doc.

22

1, pp. 1; 2; 3; 6), and that his conviction and sentence are “not at issue.” (Doc. 1, pp. 1; 2; 3; 5; 6).

23

Specifically, Petitioner contends that he suffers from various physical and medical disabilities,

24

including hearing loss, and that he was denied proper medical care and treatment as a result of

25

“discrimination, retaliation… [and] race.” (Doc. 1, p. 1). Petitioner is thus challenging the conditions

26

of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. No relief requested by Petitioner in his

27

petition would affect the fact or duration of Petitioner’s sentence. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled

28

to habeas corpus relief, and this petition must be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his
2

1

claims, Petitioner must do so by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
ORDER

2
3
4

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to assign a United States District
Judge to this case.
RECOMMENDATION

5
6
7
8
9

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus petition be
DISMISSED for Petitioner’s failure to state any cognizable federal habeas claims.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge
assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local

10

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21 days

11

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

12

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

13

Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within 10 days (plus three days

14

if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

15

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections

16

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

17

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 2, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3