Silva v. Kings County Jail, et al.
Filing
4
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim 1 signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/19/2017. Show Cause Response due by 11/22/2017.(Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JUSTIN JOSEPH SILVA,
Petitioner,
10
v.
11
12
Case No. 1:17-cv-01405-MJS (HC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE
CLAIM
KINGS COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
(ECF NO. 1)
Respondents.
13
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
14
15
16
Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
17
18
U.S.C. § 2241. He is detained at the Kings County Jail awaiting trial.
19
Petitioner complains of the following: “medical procedures, cruel and unusual
20
punishment, manipulation, jail conditions, title 15 violations, civil rights infringement,
21
mental health violations.” (ECF NO. 1 at 2.) While he asserts entitlement to habeas
22
relief, his claims do not appear to implicate the fact or length of his detention.
23
I.
Discussion
24
A.
25
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 22541 Cases provides in pertinent part:
26
27
28
1
Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal
The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied to petitions for writ of habeas corpus other
than those brought under § 2254 at the Court’s discretion. See, Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases. Civil Rule 81(a)(4) provides that the rules “apply to proceedings for habeas corpus . . . to the
extent that the practice in such proceedings is not specified in a federal statute, the Rules Governing
1
If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk
to notify the petitioner.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a
petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the
respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A
petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it
appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis
v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).
B.
Failure to State Cognizable Claim
A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner
can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. §
2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the
“legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.
1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee
Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method
for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500
U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory
Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Petitioner’s claims do not implicate the fact or duration of his confinement.
Petitioner does not challenge his underlying detention but rather the conditions of his
confinement, specifically the medical and mental health care available to him, other
unspecified conditions, and violations of state policies, procedures, and regulations.
Petitioner's claims, even if meritorious, would not provide a basis for federal habeas
jurisdiction.
Section 2254 Cases, or the Rules Governing 2255 Cases; and has previously conformed to the practice in
civil actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(4).
28
2
1
A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend
2
unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave
3
granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). As it is unclear whether a
4
cognizable claim could be stated, Petitioner will be provided the opportunity to file an
5
amended petition.
6
II.
Order
7
Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be
8
dismissed for failure to state cognizable habeas claims. Petitioner is ORDERED to file an
9
amended petition for writ of habeas corpus within thirty (30) days of the date of service of
10
this order. Failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of the petition.
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 19, 2017
/s/
14
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?