Turner v. Grounds

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 10/30/14 denying 15 Motion for contempt and denying 17 Motion for temporary restraining order to petitioner raising his claims in a proper proceeding under 42 USC 1983. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

ANTHONY R. TURNER,

13
14
15
16

Petitioner,
vs.

ORDER

R. Grounds,
Respondent.

17
18

No. 2:13-cv-0824-CMK-P

/
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

19

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge

20

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the

21

action. Pending before the court are petitioner’s motion for contempt and petitioner’s motion for

22

a temporary restraining order.

23

Neither of these motions are properly before the court in this action. At issue in

24

this case is plaintiff’s challenge to a prison disciplinary proceeding wherein he alleges his due

25

process rights were violated. As petitioner alleges he lost good time credits as a result of that

26

disciplinary proceeding, the duration of his confinement is as issue and this case properly
1

1

proceeds under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In both of his current motions, however, petitioner raises

2

issues relating to his treatment by prison officials, and he is requesting the court to intervene and

3

stop his Constitutional rights from being violated. Where a prisoner challenges the conditions of

4

confinement, as opposed to the fact or duration of confinement, his remedy lies in a civil rights

5

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1985).

6

Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cannot be used to challenge the conditions of confinement, and 42

7

U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be used to challenge the fact or duration of confinement.

8

To the extent petitioner is challenging his treatment while incarcerated, that would

9

be equivalent to a challenge to the conditions of confinement. If petitioner believes his rights are

10

being violated by the way prison officials are treating him, his remedy lies in filing a civil rights

11

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A motion challenging such treatment is not properly raised in

12

this action, where the issue involved is the duration of his confinement.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for contempt

14

(Doc. 15) and motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 17) are denied without prejudice to

15

petitioner raising his claims in a proper proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

16
17
18
19

DATED: October 30, 2014
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2