Turner v. Grounds
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANTHONY R. TURNER,
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the
action. Pending before the court are petitioner’s motion for contempt and petitioner’s motion for
a temporary restraining order.
Neither of these motions are properly before the court in this action. At issue in
this case is plaintiff’s challenge to a prison disciplinary proceeding wherein he alleges his due
process rights were violated. As petitioner alleges he lost good time credits as a result of that
disciplinary proceeding, the duration of his confinement is as issue and this case properly
proceeds under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In both of his current motions, however, petitioner raises
issues relating to his treatment by prison officials, and he is requesting the court to intervene and
stop his Constitutional rights from being violated. Where a prisoner challenges the conditions of
confinement, as opposed to the fact or duration of confinement, his remedy lies in a civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1985).
Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cannot be used to challenge the conditions of confinement, and 42
U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be used to challenge the fact or duration of confinement.
To the extent petitioner is challenging his treatment while incarcerated, that would
be equivalent to a challenge to the conditions of confinement. If petitioner believes his rights are
being violated by the way prison officials are treating him, his remedy lies in filing a civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A motion challenging such treatment is not properly raised in
this action, where the issue involved is the duration of his confinement.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for contempt
(Doc. 15) and motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 17) are denied without prejudice to
petitioner raising his claims in a proper proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
DATED: October 30, 2014
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?