Wahid v. Foulk

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/03/13 ordering that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMIR WAHID, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-2191 CKD P v. ORDER F. FOULK, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 17 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to this court’s jurisdiction 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302. The petition alleges that officials at High 20 Desert State Prison (HDSP) did not properly address an administrative grievance submitted by 21 petitioner. It also challenges the hardship transfer policy at HDSP, i.e., the “blanket denial of 22 transfers.” Petitioner seeks an order directing HDSP officials to transfer him to another prison, 23 closer to his family, within sixty days. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner’s challenges to his conditions of confinement are properly the subject of an 24 25 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Such actions have different procedural and 26 exhaustion requirements, and are governed by a different body of substantive law, than actions 27 seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus. As the United States Supreme Court has stated: 28 //// 1 1 Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action. . . . Federal petitions for habeas corpus may be granted only after other avenues of relief have been exhausted. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). [Citation.] Prisoners suing under § 1983, in contrast, generally face a substantially lower gate, even with the requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that administrative opportunities be exhausted first. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749, 750-751 (2004) (per curiam). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for 10 11 summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and 12 any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the 13 instant case, it is plain from the petition and appended exhibits that petitioner is not entitled to 14 federal habeas relief. Therefore, the petition should be summarily dismissed.1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application for 15 16 a writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed. 17 Dated: December 3, 2013 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 2 / wahi2191.156b 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Petitioner may re-file the instant claims in an action pursuant to section 1983. But see Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) (holding that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be housed at a particular prison within a state’s prison system). Petitioner is advised that the statutory filing fee for such an action is $350.00. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). A section 1983 inmate plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is obligated to pay this fee in monthly installments from his or her prison trust account. 2

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?