Mills v. Matavousian

Filing 6

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/15/2018. Show Cause Response due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

EDDIE MILLS,
Petitioner,

10
v.

11
12

Case No. 1:18-cv-00224-MJS (HC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE
CLAIM

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, Warden,
(ECF NO. 1)
Respondent.

13

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
14
15
16
17

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

18

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. His claims are somewhat unclear. He checked a box on

19

his form complaint indicating his petition concerned a prison disciplinary action or other

20

action resulting in loss of time credits. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) However, the petition contains

21

no facts in that regard, but instead includes only allegations pertaining to denial of his

22

constitutional rights to access to the law library and the courts.

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

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ
of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2241; challenges to conditions of
confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Preiser
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973), or pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the “federal analogue”
to § 1983. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254, 255 n.2 (2006). A Bivens action is the
proper remedy for a federal prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the
conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody. See Prieser, 411
U.S. at 499; Bivens, 403 U.S. 388.
Here, it appears that a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to
§ 2241 is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents. Petitioner challenges
the denial of his access to the law library and the courts. These claims do not implicate
the fact or duration of his confinement. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable
habeas claim pursuant to § 2241.
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
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

granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). Thus, Petitioner will be

2

provided the opportunity to file an amended petition.

3

II.

4

Order
It is HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. Petitioner shall show cause, within thirty days of the date of service of this

6

order, why the petition should not be dismissed for Petitioner's failure to

7

state a cognizable habeas claim;

8

2. If Petitioner chooses to amend his petition, he must file his amended

9

petition for writ of habeas corpus within thirty days of the date of service of

10

this order; and

11

3. Failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that the

12

petition be dismissed.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 15, 2018

/s/

16

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3